Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Soldiers (Deaths Overseas)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his policy not to pay the cost of transporting back to their homes the bodies of soldiers killed outside the United Kingdom during peace time.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 10th February, 1960.

Mr. Fitch: That reply was very unsatisfactory. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is feeling among people of all political opinions that his policy in this respect is lacking in humanity? Will he consult his Service colleagues with a view to revising it?

Mr. Profumo: I recognise that there is very wide feeling in this matter, but the policy is one which has been followed by all the Services since the First World War, and I do not consider that a change at this moment would be justified.

Mr. Mason: That does not necessarily mean that it is right or humane. Why cannot the War Office soften up to this demand? Scores of requests have been made by parents who have lost their boys abroad. This has been raised dozens of times in the House. Both sides of the House agree that the War Office ought to recognise these cases. The cost will not cripple the country.

Why cannot the War Office recognise this genuine and sincere demand?

Mr. Profumo: I have said that I recognise the sincerity of feeling on all sides about this matter. I merely called the House's attention to the fact that this is a policy which has been in being for a very long time.

Mr. Mason: It is not necessarily right.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the War Office would soften its heart. This is a matter which can be dealt with only on an inter-Service basis, all the Services included. It would then be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Fitch: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many widows of Army officers and other ranks are drawing pre-1958 pensions; and when it is proposed to increase them;
(2) how many retired Army officers and other ranks are drawing pre-1958 pensions; and when it is proposed to increase them.

Mr. Profumo: I will, with permission—

Dame Irene Ward: No, not at all.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is under some illusion. The words "with permission" do not mean that she may deny the Minister permission.

Mr. Profumo: I will, with or without permission, answer this Question and Question No. 3 together.
The number drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, the date to which pensions increases for other ranks and for widows apply, are approximately: officers, 19,500; ORs, 69,500; Widows, 5,200. No further increase is proposed at present.

Dame Irene Ward: As many of the old widows are drawing pensions which are less than the National Assistance scales and are "grandmums", will my right hon. Friend agree that it is not


a very good example for recruiting to treat old widows badly and hope to get their grandsons into the Services?
With regard to my second Question, will my right hon. Friend tell me why Lord Montgomery can draw an increased pension under the National Insurance Act and share in the general prosperity of the country when old retired officers who are not entitled to the benefits of the National Insurance Act are left on small pensions which are quite out of tune with modern life?

Mr. Profumo: As my hon. Friend knows, I am not responsible for the National Insurance Act. Widow's pensions were raised by 10 per cent. only last year.
In answer to my hon. Friend's first supplementary question, pressure on pensions comes from inflation which, as she knows, Her Majesty's Government are dedicated to fight. We try to make fair and reasonable provision—

Dame Irene Ward: On the widows.

—
August
September
October
Total


Medical grounds
…
…
…
…
561
453
424
1,438


Compassionate grounds:






Under 16 weeks
…
…
…
…
34
47
30
481


16 weeks and over
…
…
…
118
125
127


Disciplinary grounds
…
…
…
…
18
15
13
46


Services no longer required
…
…
…
4
6
7
17


TOTAL
…
…
…

735
646
601
1,982

No. 2 Dress

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War the estimated cost of providing men in the Service, other than officers, with walking-out dress, and confining the use of khaki to training and barrack duties.

Mr. Profumo: The estimated cost of the new Service dress—the No. 2 dress—for other ranks in the Army is £3 million.

Mr. Shinwell: That seems a very large sum and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has to conserve his resources. In view, however, of the need for further recruitment of conventional troops, is it not desirable to spend part of the money progressively?

Mr. Profumo: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is not entirely

Mr. Profumo: —for pensions in the terms of service on the best evidence available to us at the time.

Dame Irene Ward: A monstrous answer.

National Service Men (Discharges)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service meal were discharged before completing their two years' service in the months of August, September, and October, 1960; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: With permission, I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The totals, however, for the three months are as follows:


Discharged on medical grounds
1,438


Discharged on compassionate grounds
481


Discharged on disciplinary grounds
46


Discharged, their services no longer required
17

Following are the figures:

a question of money. It is a question of the capacity of cloth-making and, indeed, of the tailors, because we require a very large capacity to produce all the clothes—something like half a million suits—and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are particular what we give to the Army. One of the troubles is that the rather small capacity for making this specialised uniform is at present very fully employed in meeting the ordinary demands of the home market. I am, however, doing everything I can to try to speed up matters and I think—I am speaking without notes—that by the end of the next financial year we shall have half the Army in the new clothes.

Mr. C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend saying that clothing manufacturers have said that they cannot fulfil these orders?

Mr. Profumo: I did not say that; my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said that, as I understand it, the clothing trade cannot speed up the orders any further than is at present arranged, but I am having a meeting with representatives of the trade in the very near future to see what can be done.

Pontefract Barracks (Television Programme)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War why watching the television programme called "The Army Game" was banned in Pontefract Barracks.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the television programme, "The Army Game," has been banned at the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry depot at Pontefract; and whether this was done with his authority.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the action of the commanding officer at Pontefract barracks in banning a television programme known as "The Army Game" so far as television sets are available within the barracks; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the ban imposed by the commanding officer of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry depot at Pontefract, Yorkshire, upon men under his command from viewing the television series "The Army Game" in barrack rooms; and if he will have the ban lifted.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions are given to officers of Her Majesty's forces to guide them in their choice of entertainment for troops under their command; whether special instructions have been issued in respect of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: Barrack rooms in which recruits live in this depot have metered television sets, and a notice was attached to them saying that this programme
should not be viewed on these sets".

The notice was not put on ordinary sets installed in the junior ranks club, sergeants' mess or married quarters. I understand the notice has now been withdrawn. This sort of action does not and should not require my authority. A commanding officer must be a man of independent judgment. If he is to make up his mind about the big things, he must be able, and be allowed, to do the same about everyday matters. The effect on the discipline and morale of the Army of circumscribing this discretion of the commanding officer would, I am convinced, outweigh any administrative convenience it might bring.

Mr. Lipton: Even though this programme is the most stupid and corny in television—and that is saying something—was it not unwise for the commanding officer to put up a notice that the men should not watch it? If people want tripe outside their working hours, why not let them have it?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman calls it tripe. I am glad he has at least suggested that the programme has no bearing on the modern Army. It has just about as little bearing on it as the Wild West films have. In my view, the action of this officer was an error of judgment.

Mr. Craddock: Whilst I appreciate the lifting of the ban, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a number of serving soldiers consider that there are too many bosses, too much "bull" and too much interference in the private time of men in the Army, all of which militates against further recruitment?

Mr. Profumo: I am aware of that. I am equally aware, however, that if we were to take a poll in the Army, most people would say that this programme was extremely undesirable. We all realise that it must not be taken seriously. I am sure that the Army can afford to be laughed at as much as anybody else. Concerning the action of the officer, these errors of judgment occur in all walks of life and, perhaps, many of us are fortunate not to have the spotlight turned on them quite so much.

Mr. Mason: In view of this officer's stupidity, which the right hon. Gentleman terms an error of judgment, which resulted in "The Army Game" getting thousands of £s worth of free publicity,


plus probably an extra viewing audience of half a million, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this does not portray the general level of intelligence of officers of Her Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Profumo: That is, to say the least, an unkind accusation by the hon. Member. I have gone as far as I am prepared to go. It is unfair to try to lampoon officers who are unable to answer back. This officer has had a good military record. I think we had better leave it at that.

Household Brigade (Full Dress)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the extra cost of allowing other ranks of the Household Brigade, already in possession of full dress, to walk out in scarlet in London.

Mr. Profumo: The extra cost might be anything up to £100,000 a year.

Mr. Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend think that they will pour coffee over their uniforms every time they go out? Why should they cost anything at all? They are only using the uniforms they already have to go out for a walk. Will my right hon. Friend look into this again?

Mr. Profumo: I have told my hon. Friend that I will certainly look at it again. I do not suggest that they will pour coffee over the uniform every time they go out, but the special material from which this is made is more than usually liable to wear and its use thus would entail something like doubling our consumption.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the material is made in Stroud and wears very well?

Foreign Legion

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will specify all his reasons for not forming a British Foreign Legion.

Mr. Profumo: The need is not for more units, but for more men to fill those we already have; hence, a foreign legion, unless it were substituted for another unit, would be an additional burden on

the Army Vote and a drain on experienced officers and N.C.O.s.

Mr. Kershaw: Is this not a rather strange doctrine that the more soldiers there are in the Army, the more they cost and the less we can afford them? Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has gone into the matter? He should not be browbeaten by the generals.

Mr. Profumo: I know that my hon. Friend is not trying to browbeat me. I did not say that the more soldiers we had, the greater the cost. I said that we are trying to get more soldiers, not just more units. I am anxious that with the ending of National Service, which will free a large number of soldiers from training in which they are now engaged, they should become active soldiers and not have to train a foreign legion.

Mr. Kershaw: In view of the nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter again.

German Troops (Training Facilities, United Kingdom)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities will be provided by his Department for the training of German troops in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War his latest arrangements for training German troops in Great Britain; and what expenditure he proposes to incur for this purpose.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the training of German troops in Great Britain: and when they will arrive.

Mr. Profumo: There are six German officers on Army training courses in this country. The cost of the training is borne by the Federal German Government. Apart from individual training of this sort, no arrangements have been made for the training of German troops in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Warbey: What new facilities have been offered? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British people will welcome the Germans here as civilians but not in uniform? Further, will he oppose the highly provocative


appointment of the organiser of Hitler's campaign against Russia to the highest post in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Profumo: The last part of that supplementary question goes so wide of the Question that I cannot answer it. In any event, it would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether he has received a telegram from Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison warmly congratulating him on his decision to have German officers here and offering to become commander-in-chief?

Mr. Profumo: No. I should point out to the hon. Member that it is not only German officers whom we have here. Other officers and other ranks of foreign countries belonging to N.A.T.O. are being trained in this country. We must regard the N.A.T.O. alliance as an alliance and not as individual people.

Mr. Allaun: Has this step been discussed? Since the Minister of Defence evaded the point in a Written Answer which he gave to me on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman now give the House an assurance that these troops will not be trained, even if it is requested, with missiles or nuclear weapons?

Mr. Profumo: The best way I can cover the hon. Member's supplementary question is to say that this problem would arise only after a recommendation of the N.A.T.O. Military Committee, and after that being endorsed by the N.A.T.O. Council.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those supplementary questions give a quite misleading impression of public opinion in this country, and that experience has shown that soldiers, sailors and airmen make very good ambassadors and are a very good influence for improving relations between countries?

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one has any imputation to make whatsoever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—no one is suggesting that these young German trainees, the oldest of whom would have been at school during the war, share any blame whatever for Hitler's crimes? But is he also

aware that there are many people in this country who are reminded by the new German Army, rationally or otherwise, of the old German Army, and for that reason there should be very strong practical reasons before bringing those people for training in this way?

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on his promotion and say that at least he will have the respect of our side of the House, and, I hope, of his side, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that it is traditional to say that. Even if hon. Members opposite do not wish to do that, I certainly want to do so. I accept what the hon. Member says and I hope that I have made it perfectly plain that these are our allies. There are safeguards and no question arises at the moment.

Recruiting Publicity

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the current cost of recruiting publicity per recruit; what were the comparable figures for 1959 and 1958; and if he will make a report on his television recruiting campaign.

Mr. Profumo: The current cost of recruiting publicity per recruit based on the first six months of this financial year is £22. Costs for 1959 and 1958 were £19 and £13 respectively. I propose to launch a television recruiting campaign early in the next financial year, and I will certainly consider giving the House a report on its results in due course.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures suggest that his present publicity methods are increasingly ineffective in securing recruits? Is he aware that it would be a welcome change to have some socially useful commercials on I.T.V.? Will he say how much he is planning to spend on this campaign and when he intends to begin it?

Mr. Profumo: I regard advertisements of this sort—trying to get recruits for the all-Regular Army—as a socially important matter of its own and I am glad that the hon. Member does not disapprove. It would be improper for me to anticipate my Estimates speech when I shall announce what we shall be spending,


but I can say that, although the figure sounds rather high, it includes the cost of all publicity and not just television. Once we get the campaign going and the recruits come in, overheads will remain the same but the cost per recruit will become lower. I hope that that is what will happen.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence yet to indicate whether his recent appearance on "Panorama" had any appreciable impact on the viewers?

Mr. Profumo: I have not had anything other than a large number of letters, most of which said that the characters appearing on the programme were appealing, but that the programme was loaded against us.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered having commercials appearing in the natural break in "The Army Game"?

Service Men, Berlin (Rations and Allowances)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that in respect of rations, domestic help and all other allowances and services British Service men in Berlin enjoy status and treatment equal to those of equivalent status at home or in West Germany.

Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied that in general, soldiers in Berlin are at least as well treated in these respects as their fellows in Western Germany or at home.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain Army personnel, but particularly R.A.F. personnel, married officers and other ranks under Army command in West Berlin, feel that they are suffering under quite inexcusable disadvantages and even financial loss in matters of the local overseas allowances, lack of fresh milk, free travel arrangements and even free ration arrangements, which the French receive but which R.A.F. men in West Berlin do not? Will he undertake to have a thorough inquiry into the matter, not just an inspection when everything is laid on and the best food is available which, I assure him, is not the case most of the time, at least for the R.A.F.?

Mr. Profumo: We carried out a complete review—not just an inspection al which everything was laid on—in which living costs in Berlin were examined, and it was concluded that they were less than those in the United Kingdom and that therefore there was no case for a change in the present arrangement; but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will gladly examine it.

Mr. MacMillan: I cannot give a particular case, for reasons which must be obvious to the Minister with his experience. This is a much more general matter. It has been established by independent accountants in the R.A.F. that the cost of living in West Berlin is higher than in West Germany in the main. Will he undertake to have a further inquiry in a general sense?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member need not have any worry about submitting a special case to me on behalf of any constituent or friend of his. He can leave out the name if he so wishes. I cannot speak for the Royal Air Force, but the Army has undertaken an examination. However, I shall be happy to look at any point which the hon. Member puts to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

High Wycombe and Bourne End

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General the number of applicants awaiting connection to the High Wycombe and Bourne End telephone exchanges, respectively; and what is the waiting list percentage of total sub scribers in each case.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The figures at 30th September last were 563 at High Wycombe and 107 at Bourne End. The percentages were 13·8 and 5·9 respectively.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the slight but acceptable decrease in the waiting list at Bourne End, the last time I asked about High Wycombe the figure was 3·3 per cent. and it has now gone up to 13 per cent.? Is he further aware that the use of the existing service by present subscribers is so great that his present plans for dealing with the waiting list


are grossly inadequate? Will he do something to speed up and improve the service in High Wycombe?

Mr. Bevins: As a matter of urgency, I am installing an additional number of operating positions at High Wycombe, and both there and at Bourne End there are to be additional cables. I think that within six months practically all the existing waiting lists will have been mopped up.

Oxford Area

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General the present waiting list percentage in the Oxford telephone area; and if it is still the highest percentage in the country.

Mr. Bevins: The present figure of 5 per cent. is still the highest in the country. I am doing all I can to meet the very high demand for telephones in the Oxford area. The percentage increase in the number of telephones installed in 1959–60 was higher in the Oxford area than in any other part of the country.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation appears to be getting worse, because twelve months ago the figure was 3·5 per cent.? What is the national average?

Mr. Bevins: The national average is a good deal lower than in the case of Oxford, but the present waiting list in the Oxford area is about 2,600 and I hope to install about 6,000 telephones in the district in the next year.

Continental Telephone Exchange

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he will now take to speed up service on the Continental telephone exchange; and what representations he has received in this connection from the Foreign Press Association, from other bodies, and from individual members of the public.

Mr. Bevins: I have received representations from a number of interests. The delays are due to a shortage of French-speaking operators and to an unexpectedly rapid increase in traffic. I have announced increases in the language allowance and also in the standard

rates of pay. I am pressing forward with the mechanisation of our services with the Continent. I am glad to say there has recently been some improvement in the service.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many people, including journalists and people with business reasons for telephoning, as well as private citizens, think that London has much the slowest Continental service of any big capital city in Europe? Is he aware that although the speed of being put through when one gets the Continental exchange may have improved, one may have to wait up to fifteen minutes before getting the Continental exchange? Does he appreciate that that is having a disastrous effect on foreign correspondents in this country, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that something effective will be done?

Mr. Bevins: I am very well aware of these criticisms and I have met a number of people about them in the last three months, during which time I have taken a number of active steps to improve the position. The time of answering has been halved at this exchange, but even so I admit that at present it is not satisfactory and I intend to push on until we have it right.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any contact with education authorities, as the main recruiting difficulty appears to be on the grounds of linguistic qualifications, so that it might be a good idea to get in touch with education authorities about the matter?

Mr. Bevins: That has been done.

Shared Lines

Mr. Farr: asked the Postmaster-General the number of private telephone subscribers sharing lines at the latest available date, and at 31st December in each of the past five years.

Mr. Bevins: As at 30th September last, about 1 million subscribers were sharing telephone lines. The numbers have not varied much since 1955 when the figure was 902,000.

Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for publicity designed to


attract new subscribers to be discontinued if it means that those new subscribers will be brought into the service at the expense of existing subscribers who will have to go on to party lines?

Mr. Bevins: I am prepared to examine that point, but at the same time we must bear in mind that the first priority is to give telephone service to people who are waiting for it.

Breakdowns

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent breakdowns in telephone services have increased during the past year; to what extent commercial and business firms have priority over private householders for repairs; why rebates on accounts are not granted to telephone users where breakdowns continue for a week; and whether he will arrange for users suffering from telephone breakdowns for more than a day to be notified about the probable length of time before service is restored.

Mr. Bevins: There has been widespread damage to telephone plant in the floods and storms of recent weeks, and I regret the inconvenience caused to our customers, although I am not responsible for the weather.
Priority is given to emergency services, but otherwise repairs are carried out as quickly as possible in the order which makes the best use of our engineering resources. Customers are not entitled to an abatement of rental for service interruptions but individual cases are sympathetically considered. I am currently examining the possibilities suggested by the last part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I ask him whether this practice obtains in any other part of the country? In view of his promise that he would examine the matter, could he give some encouragement to me and others that some courtesy of this kind will be extended to users?

Mr. Bevins: As I say, we will look at the suggestion embodied in the last phrase of the Question. As regards rebates from rentals, these are, and will

continue to be, considered very sympathetically.

International Calls

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Postmaster-General why it takes fifteen minutes to obtain a reply when one dials INT for an international call on a Sunday morning.

Mr. Bevins: A delay of fifteen minutes is quite exceptional, and I regret it. I am making inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the real reason why the Postmaster-General has not an adequate staff that he does not pay them properly? Will he please take steps to remedy this so that the public may have an adequate service?

Mr. Bevins: No. The hon. Gentleman is rather off the beam. In that particular exchange on that particular morning we had redundant staff. As regards pay and conditions, I have already referred in an earlier Answer to improvements which we have recently given.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Morning Deliveries, Central London

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the delivery of the morning mail in Central London, in view of the delays taking place, details of which have been given to him.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I very much regret that shortage of postmen and staffing difficulties have caused some delay in the morning delivery of letters in parts of Central London. I am hopeful that the recent announcement of a pay increase will help with recruitment and that this will lead to an improvement in the situation.

Sir W. Wakefield: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if she is aware that delays of the mails, which have been going on for a long time, are very serious for those firms in Central London which have large post-bags? They have numbers of their staff doing nothing.

Miss Pike: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the difficulties caused by these delays in the mails and are doing our best to overcome them.

Railways (Theft of Mails)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange, in consultation with the British Transport Commission, for the provision of additional safety measures for the conveying of mail bags on British Railways, such as padlocks on the door of the grill and a lock on the grill itself.

Mr. Compton Carr: asked the Postmaster-General what further steps are being taken to protect the mails on trains from thieves.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking to prevent mail thefts on trains.

Mr. Bevins: Bolts and chains have already been fitted on certain trains to protect the guards and the mails. In collaboration with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and the British Transport Commission we are working urgently on a number of other security measures, including some on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones).

Mr. Jones: The guards of British Railways will welcome that reply if the action is expedited without delay. At the moment they are under grave misgiving because these recommendations are not in effect.

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that that is appreciated by my right hon. Friend and by the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that which is not a question.

Mr. Lipton: If the various measures now under contemplation prove inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman propose, as a temporary measure, the use of troops to guard mails on the trains when they are not watching "The Army Game" on television?

Mr. Carr: Will my right hon. Friend see that as great as possible an amount of attention is paid to the safeguarding of mail on passenger corridor trains, which seem especially vulnerable?

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and we have certain measures under way at the moment to deal with the situation.

Letter and Parcel Deliveries (Delays)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will state the minimum and maximum time taken for delivering a small parcel between London and Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, respectively; whether he is aware that some parcels take as long as eight days, and that in one case a parcel took four days to travel seven miles; and whether, in view of the bad service, he will either reduce the cost or effect an immediate improvement in the service;
(2) if he will consult with the British Transport Commission about delays to letters and parcels between London, Manchester, and Cheshire, during the past six months.

Miss Pike: Dependent on the time of posting, the parcels to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers should normally be delivered the next day or the day after, but if a weekend intervenes delivery may take a little longer. I am aware that some parcels and also letters are not getting through as quickly as they should and I very much regret this. Staff shortages and rail delays both make their contribution to this situation. In collaboration with the British Transport Commission, we are doing our best to overcome these difficulties.
I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall not relax in our efforts to remedy these shortcomings.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Supplementary to Question No. 29. Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfair these days for the public to blame the Post Office for the disgraceful service that we all have to suffer and far the long time that it takes to deliver parcels which in some cases is worse than in the days of the Pony Express? Would she consider issuing a statement pointing out that this bad service is entirely due to the greatest money-wasters of all our nationalised industries, British Railways, with their dirty, late, draughty and dangerous trains?

Mr. Speaker: The use of unnecessary epithets in a question is out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. I am terribly sorry but I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker, because of the noise made by hon. Members opposite. I am sorry if I did anything wrong, but what did I do wrong?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member asked a supplementary question which was out of order, and if he will be so good as to look in HANSARD at what I said, he will see why.

Mr. W. R. Williams: While not wishing to associate myself in any way with the exaggerated statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), but recognising that he has some virtue in the Question that he has put about the delays that are taking place, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that a high proportion of the delays, in parcel mails in particular, must be attributed to the reorganisation schemes that are going on now on the railways, the hon. Lady will not consider a temporary alternative whereby the Post Office itself will undertake some of the responsibilities now borne by the railways, especially in reducing the number of transfer points on the railway system?

Miss Pike: We would not wish to dodge any of our own responsibilities or the responsibility of keeping our own house in order. It is perfectly true that many of our difficulties arise from delays on the railway. We are in constant touch with British Railways about this and we are constantly getting them to improve their service. We are looking into every way in which we can improve the service that we give to the public and we are looking for alternative methods of speeding up mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

Mr. Lipton: Apologise.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Go and play "Animal Grab".
Supplementary to Question No. 42. Is my hon. Friend aware that before the war letters posted in the Knutsford division by the morning post were delivered in London the same evening? Would not she agree that it now takes,

in some cases, eight times longer at twice the cost? Is not this typical of nationalised industries and of British Railways which give the public a worse service at increased cost?

Miss Pike: My hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that we have been looking into the possibility of improving the service. One thing that we have been able to do is to put on a new train between Crewe and Manchester which helps to speed up the delivery of mail in Manchester. In this way we think we can help with the delivery of mail between Manchester and London.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. Lady being a little less than fair in not telling the House quite distinctly that there are contributory causes to delays in mail and parcel deliveries by the railways, such as fog-bound conditions holding up trains and addresses not correctly written, which is a very big complaint? Does not she agree that this ought to be referred back to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport)? Knutsford can be very "nutty" sometimes.

Mr. Speaker: My impression is that all that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has done in the form of a question is to give information, and that is out of order.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. The gist of the supplementary question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) refers to the efficiency of Macclesfield Post Office. May I make it clear that the post office there is highly efficient?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The efficiency or inefficiency of the Macclesfield or any other post office does not raise a point of order for the Chair.

Letters, London Area (Sorting Staff)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the delays to letters posted in the London area, particularly those posted on


Fridays, he will engage more sorting staff to deal with peak loads.

Miss Pike: There is at present a shortage of postmen for sorting in the London area. Every effort is being made to improve the position and the recently announced pay increase for civil servants should help. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any delays which have come to his notice I shall be glad to look into the matter to see whether some improvement can be effected.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the present difficulties are mastered it should be possible to get back to the practice of posting a letter in London at 5.30 on a Friday evening to reach suburbs such as Twickenham by first post on Saturday morning?

Miss Pike: We accept that, whatever steps we take to make ourselves as efficient as possible, we must be eternally vigilant.

Land, Buildings and Accommodation Plant

Mr. Emery: asked the Postmaster-General (1) the total value of all land and buildings owned by his Department; and how much of this is fully utilised;
(2) what percentage of his Department's property is scheduled for improvement, modernisation, and expansion.

Miss Pike: The Commercial Accounts show that the net book value of Post Office land, buildings and accommodation plant as £133·5 million at 31st March, 1960. In virtually all cases this is fully utilised or earmarked for future use. I cannot say what percentage of Post Office property is scheduled for improvement, modernisation and extension, but capital expenditure last year in connection with buildings was equal to about 10 per cent. of the book value of the property.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask whether she would consider, and get her right hon. Friend to consider, the point that in the expansion of Post Office property all sites should be used to the full? In connection with certain expansions throughout the country, will she bear in mind that

greater economic use might be made of certain sites which, even if the Post Office cannot use them, might well be leased to bring further income to the Post Office account?

Miss Pike: I can assure my hon. Friend that we take all those considerations into account.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that the first consideration of herself and her right hon. Friend will be to see that the Post Office as a service has adequate accommodation for its work?

Miss Pike: I can gladly give that assurance.

North Berwick (Deliveries from London)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions during September, October and November, respectively, letters posted in Central London before 6 p.m. were not included in the first delivery at North Berwick on the following morning.

Miss Pike: The main mails containing correspondence posted in Central London for first delivery in North Berwick failed to connect once in October and three times in November. The connections were maintained throughout September. As we do not keep records of the passage of unregistered letters through the post, I cannot say on how many occasions individual items due to connect with the first delivery failed to do so. But I assure my hon. Friend that we will do all we can to keep delays to a minimum.

Mr. Stodart: In view of the fact that those of us who use the East Coast route find that the train service to Scotland runs reasonably well on time, will my hon. Friend say whether there is a very tight connection involved between the sorting of letters in Central London, and their catching the mail?

Miss Pike: Yes. The connection is rather tight, because the last collection from street boxes is at 5.30 p.m. and from the head post office at 6 o'clock, and the train goes from King's Cross at 8.20 p.m. There is certain building development work going on at King's Cross Station which will help us to get mails on to the trains faster.

Edinburgh (Deliveries from London)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Postmaster-General why letters which are posted in Central London before 6 p.m. are frequently not delivered in Edinburgh before 9 o'clock the next morning.

Miss Pike: Letters posted up to 5.30 p.m. in the street boxes in Central London and up to 6 p.m. at head district offices should get first delivery in Edinburgh next weekday. Unfortunately, due to late running of the trains which carry the letters the connection is not always made. In collaboration with the British Transport Commission I am seeing what can be done to improve matters and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Stodart: In view of my hon. Friend's reply to my supplementary question on Question No. 37, about the tightness of the connection, may I ask whether she has given consideration to the possibility of sending letters north by air mail in future? If so, and perhaps until that comes about, would it be a proposition perhaps to have posting done in Central London at 5 o'clock instead of 5.30 and thereby reduce the tightness of the connection?

Miss Pike: There is some difficulty with what we call the "down special" from Euston because of the modernisation work on that line. We are considering the possibility of sending mails by air. I would not wish to bring forward the latest time of posting. A Committee is sitting at present to consider the distribution of mails to see how we can give the best possible service to the public.

Charitable Organisations (Journals)

Mr. Collard: asked the Postmaster-General if he will extend to two months the minimum interval at which journals of charitable organisations must be published in order to qualify for registration as newspapers, and so enjoy reduced postal rates.

Miss Pike: No, Sir. The newspaper post is already running at a heavy loss and I am sorry that I should not be justified in adding to this by doing as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that such an extension would be a great boon to such charitable organisations as the Royal Air Force Association, whose journal is published every other month, though in every other respect it complies with the regulations for registration as a newspaper?

Miss Pike: I recognise the good grounds on which my hon. Friend asks for this concession. But the great difficulty is that if we give a concession in this respect there are very many other educational and charitable journals which would wish to have it. In view of the great loss on these mails, we do not feel justified in doing it at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Industry (B.B.C. Programmes)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions he has required the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting plays or films containing inaccurate presentations of British industrial operations.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Mr. Pentland: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when such serious types of programme are televised, it should be the duty of the B.B.C. to see that they are factual productions? Is he aware that a recent production called "Pay Day" was an insult to both management and men in the mining industry, and that it presented an entirely inaccurate account of how a pit is worked under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and of the miners' conduct of trade union business at pit level? Is it not time that this industry's operations, and the lives of its communities, were properly dealt with by the B.B.C.?

Mr. Bevins: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, in reply to an earlier Question, that this was intended to be a purely fictional work. It was a play, and as such it was not intended to be factual. But having said that, I do appreciate the feelings of the hon. Gentleman and of all people who work in the mining industry, and I am quite


sure that what he has said today will have a good effect.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are now reaching a stage in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get men into the pits, and that programmes of this kind, casting slurs on the miners, are of no help? If we have a crisis in the industry, which we might well have, it will have a serious effect on the country as a whole.

Mr. Bevins: I have tried to be fair and to put this matter in its proper balance. This play was seen by many people, and most people would regard it as a work of drama and not think of it as a reflection upon the mining community.

Colour Television

Captain Orr: asked the Postmaster-General what communication he has had from the British Broadcasting Corporation on the subject of colour television; and what has been his reply.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Postmaster-General what representations the British Broadcasting Corporation has made to him with a view to commencing coloured television on 405 lines without waiting for the South and Television Broadcasting Committee report; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to provide guidance for the public and the radio industry, he will state his policy on colour television.

Sir H. Kerr: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the concern caused to the radio industry by the proposal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to introduce colour television on the present line standards; and whether he will give an assurance that he will not permit such broadcasts before a decision on line standards is taken.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General if, when replying to the British Broadcasting Corporation's application for permission to introduce colour television, he will make it clear that no such permission can be given before the Pilkington Committee reports.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General when it is now anticipated, approximately, that colour television will be provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what consideration has been given to the need for an increase in the cost of licences to meet increased expenditure on this account.

Mr. Bevins: On 9th December the B.B.C. sought my approval to the start of an experimental public colour television service in November, 1961. I shall shortly be replying to its request.
My Television Advisory Committee, however, has advised me against the introduction of colour television in the near future for reasons which seam to me to be convincing. This falls within the terms of reference of the Pilkington Committee, which will not doubt report.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that decision will be welcomed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members wait until I have finished they may find out why. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Television Advisory Committee's Report was signed by the B.B.C., and, for good reasons, it said that we should not start colour on obsolete line standards?

Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Despite what the Postmaster-General's hon. Friends are saying behind him, is this not a very unimaginative and unfair policy? If the B.B.C. is sufficiently advanced scientifically and technically, why should he force it to mark time simply because other interested bodies are either unwilling or unable to make the necessary researches? Will not this unfortunate decision of his mean, in effect, that this country will shortly be lagging behind other countries in the development of colour television?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Nothing that I have said in my reply in any way detracts from my appreciation of what the B.B.C. has already done for colour television. At the same time, however, it would be a profound mistake for any British Government to make a decision on colour television in advance of a decision on line standards. That would be putting the cart before the horse, and it would encourage a public demand for television


sets of the existing kind—405 lines—with colour, which might well be completely obsolete and out of date within a few years.

Sir H. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if his Department finally decides on the new lineage, we may enjoy the possibility of a big export market in Europe?

Mr. Bevins: Indeed that is quite possible.

Mr. Darling: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point made in his Answer? I have not seen the Advisory Committee's Report, but he said that the B.B.C. had asked for permission to operate an experimental system. Did the Advisory Committee report on an experimental or a commercial system being introduced?

Mr. Bevins: The Advisory Committee reported on the question of whether we should embark on colour television in the near future. The advice of the Committee was against that idea. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Report to study

Mr. Darling: That does not answer the question.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Nor did the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question. In view of the delay which must inevitably occur in receiving the report of the Pilkington Committee, does not he think that we shall lag seriously behind other nations if we procastinate in this way?

Mr. Bevins: There is a good deal of misapprehension about what is happening in other countries. In the United States, for instance, I am told that at present there is a very small number of sets capable of taking colour compared with the vast number of monochrome sets. In Japan the cost of a colour television set is £500. I am sure that at present this thing is just not a "starter".

Sir R. Grimston: Is it not the case that the B.B.C. signed the Advisory Committee's Report recommending the opposite of what it is now asking for? Is the B.B.C. not behaving like the Labour Party—voting different ways on the same resolution?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. The representative of the B.B.C. on the Advisory Committee signed the Report.

Mr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the uncertainty created by the B.B.C.'s announcement is deterring a number of people from buying conventional sets, to the detriment of the trade?

Mr. Bevins: In view of what I have said today, that should not happen any longer.

Local Sound Broadcasting

Mr. Darling: asked the Postmaster-General what requests he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation for permission to operate local sound broadcasting services.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has asked me to approve plans for the introduction, in stages, of local sound broadcasting. I have told the Chairman that the Government does not feel able to authorise an important innovation of this kind at a time when the committee of inquiry is reviewing the whole field.

Mr. Darling: Does this mean that all normal developments in broadcasting in this country must now be held up for four or five years until the Pilkington Committee has reported and the House has dealt with its Report? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for very good reasons we in Sheffield want a local sound broadcasting service, and that the B.B.C., I understand, is prepared to go ahead with that development? Why should the citizens of Sheffield have to wait five years for a development that can take place pretty soon if only the Government behave properly?

Mr. Bevins: It simply means that all major innovations in television broadcasting will not be permitted until such time as the Pilkington Committee has reported—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it would be entirely unreasonable for the Government, having set up that Committee, to take over its responsibilities from it.

Mr. Mulley: Would it not be better for the Pilkington Committee to have some experience of such a station and would not a pilot scheme in Sheffield help rather than hinder the Committee in


its consideration? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no commercial consideration behind this blank refusal?

Mr. Bevins: There are no commercial considerations at all.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should look behind him.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are grinning all over their faces.

Mr. Bevins: If it would help the Pilkington Committee to have an experiment in local sound broadcasting in Sheffield, I have no doubt that the Committee will ask for it.

Mr. Callaghan: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of Commons, what everybody knows to be the case, that some back-benchers opposite and those who have commercial interests in this are determined to prevent the B.B.C. from going in for local sound broadcasting so that they can make fat profits in the future?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I think that is entirely untrue. The hon. Member's approach to this question is completely warped. The position is that to start local sound broadcasting in this country at present, whether by the B.B.C., the I.T.A., or by commercial interests, would be wrong when we have asked the Pilkington Committee to consider it.

Mr. Darling: In view of the Postmaster-General's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Advertising

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority under subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, regarding the amount of advertising which may be broadcast each hour.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: What is the maximum amount of advertising now permitted per hour, and when will six minutes be laid down as was promised when the Act was passed?

Mr. Bevins: The I.T.A. rule is that the limit per hour should be six minutes on average. It has, as I think the House knows, already announced that the maximum amount in any one clock hour has been progressively reduced from eight minutes in 1959 to seven and a half minutes in September of this year, and that it will be reduced to seven minutes as from 24th December.

Outer Hebrides (Television and High Frequency Broadcasting)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to authorise the necessary expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation for the extension of television and very high frequency broadcasting services to the islands of Barra, Benbecula, and North and South Uist.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. says that the possibility of further stations in the Outer Hebrides will be considered when the stations I have approved for Lewis and Skye are working, and their effective range established.

Mr. MacMillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and give us some sort of idea about the time-table? I am grateful for his reply.

Mr. Bevins: All I can say is that at present I am awaiting the B.B.C.'s Stage III proposals. I do not know when we shall get them, but as soon as I do I will give them urgent consideration.

Pilkington Committee (Report)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he expects to receive the report of the Pilkington Committee by 1st August, 1961.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir; but, as I told my hon. Friend last week, I am sure that the Committee will report to me just as soon as it can.

Mr. Goodhart: If the Pilkington Committee is not likely to report soon, will my right hon. Friend consider asking it for an interim report on the basic question of lineage? Surely the technical experts have thrashed out this matter thoroughly. The delay is holding up technical developments in the whole television field.

Mr. Bevins: I am loth to ask the Pilkington Committee for interim reports on any phase of the field into which it is looking, but I am equally sure that if the Committee felt it right to make an interim report on its own initiative, say, on line definition, it would not hesitate to do so.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the Postmaster-General estimate when the Committee is likely to make its report, in view of the serious Questions which have appeared on the Order Paper today?

Mr. Bevins: I hope it will be either by the end of 1961 or the early part of 1962. The Committee is getting down to its job in the most remarkable manner.

BILL PRESENTED

POST OFFICE

Bill to reorganise the financial arrangements of the Post Office; to amend the Post Office Act, 1953, and the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Bevins; supported by Sir E. Boyle and Miss Pike; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (TROLLEY VEHICLES)

3.31 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the duty of trolley vehicles to stop and furnish particulars in case of accident; and for purposes connected therewith.
My proposed Bill is very short and has a very simple objective. It seeks to provide that the obligation to report accidents to the police shall be the same in respect of trolleybus drivers as it is in respect of the drivers of motor vehicles. The regulations governing the reporting of accidents to the police may not be perfect, but there is no reason why trolleybus drivers should not be governed by the same regulations as the drivers of motor vehicles.
In Newcastle recently, a trolleybus driver knocked down an old lady. It may not have been the trolleybus driver's fault—he quite correctly reported the accident to the depot—but the old lady went home and nothing more was heard of her until a few days later, when the police were called and she was found dead in her house. When the inquest was held the Newcastle coroner announced that he had looked up the law and had found that trolleybus drivers were exempt from reporting accidents to the police, under the terms of a very old Act, passed in 1871. The police supported the coroner's view and the chairman of the Transport Committee of the Newcastle Corporation also referred to the difficulties under which it operated its service owing to this differentiation in the law.
The people of Newcastle felt very sad and worried that this old lady had died in such sad circumstances. An investigation was immediately made into the legal position, and it transpired that the duties of trolleybus drivers were governed by the Act to which I have referred, which provides that in the case of an accident a report lies to the President of the Board of Trade, who, in turn, has to report to the railway inspectorate, after which an inquiry into the accident can be ordered.
Somehow or other this old law had been gathered up by my right hon.


Friend the Minister of Transport, and the fact that trolleybus drivers are under no obligation to take the action which drivers of motor vehicles have to take can have unfortunate consequences, as in the case of the old lady to whom I have referred. To the people on the North-East Coast it seemed right that trolleybus drivers should be under the same obligation as the drivers of motor vehicles.
In the case of motor vehicles, insurance companies are concerned, but it has been pointed out to me very strongly by the legal profession in the North of England that if, subsequent to a trolley-bus driver reporting the circumstances of an accident to his depot, legal action is taken, no evidence is available. When a trolleybus driver reports an accident it is quite possible that he will merely state his own point of view, and no examination or investigation is carried out into the circumstances of the accident.
Section 259 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, explicitly provides that trolleybus drivers are exempt from certain portions of the Act, and the people of Newcastle feel strongly that they ought not to be. That is why I am asking permission to introduce this Bill. It may be that I shall not have to proceed to any further stages with the Bill if I am given permission to introduce it. If I understand the position correctly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be introducing a new Road Safety Bill next year, in which it may be possible for him to insert a provision putting trolleybus drivers in the same position as the drivers of other motor vehicles.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Elliott, Mr. McKay, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Popplewell, and Mr. Short.

ROAD TRAFFIC (TROLLEY VEHICLES)

Bill to amend the law relating to the duty of trolley vehicles to stop and furnish particulars in case of accident; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BOARD.)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "assessing and".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if the following Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member, were discussed with this Amendment.
In Clause 3, page 4, line 12, leave out "Levy Board" and insert:
Bookmakers' Committee established in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section".
In line 15, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "Bookmakers' Committee".
In Clause 4, page 5, line 20, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 21.
In line 22, leave out "for" and insert "shall state".
In line 26, leave out from "may" to "scrutinise" in line 28.
In line 38, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "Bookmakers' Committee".
In line 42, after second "the", insert "Levy".
In Clause 5, page 7, line 18, after "Board", insert "and the Bookmakers' Committee".

Mr. McAdden: I readily agree to your suggestion, which, I think, is admirable, Sir Gordon, that we should discuss with this Amendment the other Amendments which are essential to the one that I have moved. I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee to expedite, so far as possible, the passage of this very worthy Measure. I should be the last to detain the Committee longer than is necessary on the principle of this Amendment.
As the Committee will be aware, last Session we passed the Betting and Gaming Act. Deliberations on that Measure were closely connected with the work of the Peppiatt Committee and I am interested to discover from my hon.


and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is that the Home Secretary, having appointed the Peppiatt Committee, which was charged with the responsibility of investigating how best the betting levy should be organised, raised, and so on, seems—I do not wish to put it higher—to have ignored the advice which the Committee gave.
If my hon. and learned Friend will turn to the Report of the Peppiatt Committee, he will find that in paragraph 33 it states what I am attempting to move by these series of Amendments which the Chair has been kind enough to select:
Those best able to run the scheme are the bookmakers themselves. Attempts made to collect a levy from bookmakers by any other body would involve the establishment of a large and expensive administrative machine. We accordingly suggest the setting up of a Bookmakers' Levy Board to collect the levy and to transmit the proceeds to a Central Board referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46.
So here we have a perfectly clear and definite recommendation by the Peppiatt Committee. In the view of that Committee the job of assessing and collecting the levy is something which should be done not by the Levy Board, but by the Bookmakers' Committee.
In paragraph 34 of its Report the Committee goes further and says that the Bookmakers' Committee should be the body responsible for collecting and assessing the levy. In paragraph 35, the Committee states:
If the Bookmakers' Levy Board is to collect a levy, it must maintain a comprehensive list of bookmakers holding permits. To enable this to be done, the Levy Board must be notified by the licensing authorities of the grant for renewal of bookmakers' permits.
It seems to me clear that this independent and representative body, the Peppiatt Committee, devoted considerable time to investigating this question, and recommended to the Government that it should be the duty of the Bookmakers' Committee to assess and collect the levy. We ought to hear from my hon. and learned Friend why it is that in the Bill the Government seem to have departed from that recommendation and placed the responsibility for assessing the levy not on the Bookmakers' Committee, but on the Levy Board as a whole.
It may be argued that it is purely a nominal difference between the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee

and the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that if the Levy Board is to have at its disposal a staff of people prepared to work not only for the Levy Board, but for various constituent bodies which make up the Levy Board, it would be more sensible and reasonable to allow the bookmakers to get on with a job which they understand better than anybody else, the job of assessing and collecting the levy.
I do not think that it is a job which can properly be undertaken by the other members of the Levy Board, the representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee and the independent representatives nominated by the Home Secretary. It would be better left in the hands of the people who, in the view of the Peppiatt Committee, are most capable of doing the work satisfactorily.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to accept the Amendment, and the series of Amendments which go with it, which seek to transfer the position back to that recommended by the Peppiatt Committee, or, alternatively, that he can put forward a reasonable argument to show why the Government have seen fit not to accept the clear recommendations outlined in paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report and again in paragraphs 45 and 46. If my hon. and learned Friend turns to paragraphs 45 and 46 he will find a clear definition of what should be done.
In paragraph 46, the Peppiatt Committee recommend:
The bookmakers' Levy Board would be responsible for the processes of assessment and collection of the levy and it should hand over the net proceeds of the levy to the Central Board.
There is no doubt about the clear and explicit language used by the Peppiatt Committee on this point. Although we are not always in agreement, I call in aid the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who made an interesting contribution to the Second Reading debate when he started that in his view, as a member of the Jockey Club, it is the duty of the Levy Board to consider how the money should be distributed. It is not part of the duty of the Board to decide


how it should be assessed or collected. Clearly, that is a duty placed on the Bookmakers' Committee by the Peppiatt Committee's Report.
While I recognise that the Government are not bound to accept in detail all the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, this so far departs from those recommendations that I hope my hon. and learned Friend can give a satisfactory explanation of why the Government thought fit to depart from a Report which was Douched in such clear and explicit terms as I have quoted this afternoon.

3.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has given me the alternative of accepting his Amendment or explaining why we have departed from the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I propose to choose the latter of those two alternatives. The changes which we have made from the recommendations in the Peppiatt Committee's Report are not the only departures from the advice given by that Committee. In the main, we have followed its advice, but we have made several departures, including this one regarding the exact task of the Bookmakers' Committee.
The change we have made is one for administrative reasons. We have not made any change which creates any real difference in the relationship between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee compared with what was recommended by the Peppiatt Committee. Under the provisions of the Bill the bookmakers will be responsible for two important tasks: first, for taking the initiative in drawing up the scheme for assessment and collection of the levy and, secondly, for scrutinising individual assessments. It can use its initiative or it can scrutinise those assessments referred to it by the Levy Board.

Mr. James McInnes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point that there is no maximum laid down of the amount to be assessed?

Mr. Renton: That is quite a different point. There is a separate Amendment

on the Notice Paper which will be discussed later and I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss that on this Amendment which deals only with the machinery.
If the Bookmakers' Committee is to carry out the duties I have mentioned effectively, it must, and under the Bill it will, have access not only to the declarations made by bookmakers, but also to the list of names of bookmakers sent to the Levy Board by the licensing authorities. The only part of the procedural responsibility not given to the Bookmakers' Committee under the Bill is that part which is purely manipulative and clerical, connected with the collection of the levy, and which, for administrative convenience, we feel is best made the responsibility of the Levy Board.
Obviously, a large clerical staff will be needed for this administrative work. It will have to compile and keep lists of bookmakers, receive declarations made by them, issue notices of assessment, collect and account for the money sent out as levy payments and issue certificates showing that the bookmakers have discharged their levy liabilities. Therefore, a considerable staff will be needed.
The question is which is most suitable for employing and controlling that staff, the Levy Board, as the Bill suggests, or the Bookmakers' Committee, as my hon. Friend has suggested. We say it is desirable that the Bookmakers' Committee should consist of working bookmakers representative of the bookmakers of the country. Those bookmakers, for the very reason that they are working bookmakers, will be able to give only a limited amount of time to the work of the committee. We do not think that it would be proper that they should have to deal with establishment problems of engagement and control of staff. We say it is better that the Levy Board should be responsible for paying the staff to undertake work on its behalf.
I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friend will feel assured that the Bookmakers' Committee has an important task to perform and that the Bill places upon it exactly that responsibility which it is suited to bear. I hope that he will feel that we are keeping away from it the purely clerical and sometimes invidious responsibility concerned with


the actual collection of the levy. For those reasons, I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end to insert "relating to horses;".
This Amendment is, I think, fairly obvious. It relates to the way in which the levy is to be distributed. I imagine that the form of words used in the Bill has been borrowed from a form in use before the Bill was introduced. Never-the less, I think it important that we should state correctly in the Bill the exact purpose for which the levy is to be used. I take no exception to subsection (1, a), which refers to
the improvement of breeds of horses
although I notice that in the past some of the money has actually been going to the purpose of breeding ponies as well.
Paragraph (c) "the improvement of horse racing", is, I think, unexceptionable, but the point was made on Second Reading and elsewhere that paragraph (b) says:
the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education;".
That provision is very wide indeed. I should have thought that under it funds could be applied to research into myxamatosis, foot-and mouth disease and other purposes quite unconnected with horse racing. If the money is to be distributed so widely, there is also the question of whether the present Levy Board is properly constituted to advise on the question.
I imagine that the actual purpose is one of the specified purposes set out in the Explanatory Memorandum:
purposes connected with the advancement of horse racing
and that it is not intended that the veterinary purposes mentioned here should be unconnected with horses. That is why I am putting forward this Amendment.
It may be that the wording which I have chosen is not the best, but it seems that if this money is to be well used it should be applied with some relation to the benefit it can bring to horses. In that connection, we think particularly

of the Animal Health Trust at New-market, which, so far as I know, is engaged on work exclusively for horses.

Mr. John Morrison: The Animal Health Trust is not engaged entirely in dealing with horses.

Mr. Digby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I thought that it was. I was under a misconception, but I do not think that alters my argument that this money should be spent on something which has a direct relation to horses and not merely distributed to various veterinary centres regardless of the particular work they might be doing. I should be grateful if the Government would explain their intentions and whether they intend that this money should go to the whole of veterinary science and education—in which case it would not go very far—or be confined to forms which would be of use to horses.

Mr. George Wigg: I think that this Amendment is one of those kindly gestures with which the Committee will agree, but I urge the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) not to press it, because veterinary science knows no frontiers and, if we establish sharp lines of demarcation, the result is bound to be the opposite from that which he has in mind.
We cannot ask the Government to commit the new Levy Board on what its policy should be. It is quite clear that the intention would be that this matter should be looked at by the veterinary authorities from the point of view of the care of horses. The hon. Member referred to some grants made in the past in respect of ponies, but such grants are tending to diminish and they were limited to a policy adopted long ago.
If the Government were kind enough to do as they have done on previous occasions—to draw the attention of the Levy Board to what the hon. Member desires—I think that he could be satisfied because the Board will look at the policies of the past and apply them in the sense he desires.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made my speech for me. I do not suppose that this is the first time that will happen in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was quite right in saying that these words follows a precedent. They were used in the 1934 Betting and Lotteries Act and re-enacted earlier this year in the Betting and Gaming Act. In practice, what he desires is, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, followed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which, as far as possible, has restricted its grants to the advancement of equine science. He mentioned the Animal Health Trust, whose grant in 1959 was related entirely to an equine research project and not to the purposes of the Trust as a whole.
In addition, a grant made to the Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies at Cambridge, in 1959, was qualified by the requirement that it should be devoted to a project connected with horses. Therefore, as far as possible, the Racecourse Betting Control Board has restricted these grants to equine projects. I believe that it has worked well in the past and that there is no reason to make a change. The difficulty about making the change suggested by my hon. Friend, either in his words or in others, is that the hands of the Board would be tied to too great a degree.
For instance, if the Board wished to make grants for a veterinary scholarship it would have to inquire whether the scholarship was devoted to equine purposes or not. I think it better for the matter to be left as it has been in the past. If my hon. Friend is still worried that the Board might not follow this practice in future, there is always the discretionary power left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has to approve these grants. Equine bodies which felt that they had not had a proper share could make representations to him. There is that safeguard. In view of that assurance, I ask my hon. Friend not to press this change on the Government.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, which I was glad to hear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "two other members" and to insert "one other member".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if this Amendment could be discussed with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
and one other member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland".
and the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), in line 22, at the end to insert:
(b) one member shall be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

Mr. Arbuthnot: In the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and myself, this is a paving Amendment which seeks to associate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer more closely with the operation of the Bill. I also understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) wishes to associate with it the Secretary of State for Scotland.
My hon. Friend and I wish to associate the Chancellor of the Exchequer more closely with the operation of this Bill for a number of reasons. The first one is that, whatever the Government may say about the Bill, it imposes a tax. It is, in effect, using the authority of Parliament to extract moneys from bookmakers and apply those moneys to horse racing. These are moneys which the industry itself cannot raise voluntarily, and there is, therefore, only one way in which one can regard this, and that is as a tax.
I see a very close parallel between the intentions of the Bill and the motor vehicles licensing duty. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that it was not very long after the Road Fund was established that it was "raided", as it was termed, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer for general taxation purposes. It may well be that the same may apply when this Bill becomes an Act, as by the Bill it is sought to raise about £1¼ million a year.

Mr. McAdden: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to say where in the Bill it is proposed to raise £1¼ million?

Mr. Arbuthnot: That was indicated on Second Reading.

Mr. McAdden: No.

Mr. Arbuthnot: If my hon. Friend will read the Second Reading debate, he will find that the indication was given there. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his Second Reading speech, said:
Hon. Members should realise that perhaps one of the greatest problems of all, when the money has been raised, is how to spend it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 907.]
The hon. Member also foresaw what he regarded as a natural increment and he felt that the amount of the turnover increase every year would be about 3 per cent. On the assumption that £1¼ million a year may be raised—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is going down a cul-de-sac, and before he gets to the end let me tell him what is happening. The £1¼ million to which he referred comes from the Peppiatt Committee's Report, and refers to a levy on bookmakers. The natural increment of 3 per cent., of which I was speaking on Second Reading, was the increase in the Tote turnover.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but the point that I was making was that this was likely to be an increasing amount, rather than a decreasing one.
Let us suppose that we were to spend about £1 million a year on the improvement of race courses. After five years, we shall have spent about £5 million, and it may well be that it will be even more difficult, within the terms and the purposes of the Bill, to find the proper things on which to spend the money. It might very well be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this case, might do exactly the same as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer did with the Road Fund. I think that it would be best if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more closely associated in this taxing Bill from the beginning, rather than possibly trying to bring himself into it at a later stage.

Mr. McInnes: The reason for my allowing my name to be associated with this Amendment is entirely different from that expressed by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot).
My sole concern here is that Scottish interests shall be adequately represented, and I hope that at a later stage, and in

another Amendment, to expand that point. Meantime, to achieve my objective, I am associating myself with this Amendment in an attempt to prevent the Home Secretary, who is associated with the Bill, from appointing the three members in order to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint one with whom I shall deal in a later Amendment.

Mr. McAdden: In discussing this Amendment, we are also discussing the Amendment to line 22, to provide for the appointment of one member by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This worries me a little. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) correctly, he seems to have formed the conclusion that there is something in the Bill restricting the amount levied on bookmakers to £1¼ million, but no such figure is to be found in the Bill. It was in a recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee, which the Government, in their wisdom, have seen fit to ignore, along with some other recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. It may well be that the Levy Board may well see fit to ignore the recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee in this respect, and indeed, ignore the advice given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which I greatly appreciate, that the Levy Board might find itself in difficulty in getting rid of the money which it collects in future years.
If that be so, to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer waiting to get in on the act as well, to try to get money from Her Majesty's citizens who are running businesses which, under the law, are recognised as lawful, and are paying taxes and a levy on top, seems to me an unreasonable proposition. If the Chancellor wants to levy a tax on businesses, let him levy it on all businesses, and not pick out bookmakers to be particularly victimised. Under the Bill, they are subjected to a levy. There is no case for my hon. Friend the Member for Dover wishing to add a watchdog of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to discover whether the money raised cannot be distributed among the various charitable interests named, and, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get in on the act also.
We had an example of this on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) tried to get a cut for the dogs. I do not doubt that somebody else will try to get a cut for football, as well. I do not see why the Treasury should get away with this. If the Treasury wants to levy a tax, then let it do so in a proper way, and not as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) would like to have one of the independent members of the Levy Board appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) would like to have one appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. With respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I suggest that their Amendments are out of keeping with the conception which we have, which I think the Committee understands, of the position and functions of the independent members of the Levy Board.
Their main duty, besides offering their advice in the counsels of the Levy Board, will be to arbitrate when there are disagreements between the Board as a whole and the Bookmakers' Committee, or between the Board and the Totalisator Board. These disputes will be concerned either with the levy scheme, either the total of it or the character and method of it, or with the totalisator contribution. If there are any such disputes, they would be on broad issues of policy, indeed, of justice. I do not think that either any special expertise or geographical responsibility will help them as independent members of the Levy Board, exercising their impartial judgment to reach the sort of conclusion that would be expected of them.
If, by any chance, either any additional expertise in financial matters, for example, or any special geographical knowledge of Scotland, Wales or anywhere else is required, it will always be open to the Board or to the independent members of it to seek such advice, professional or otherwise, as may be necessary. We feel, therefore, that there is no case for having either of the members of the Board appointed for the representation of special interests or special anxieties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover repeated his argument, which we do not believe to be a valid one in the context of the Bill, that the levy is a hypothecated tax. My hon. Friend referred to something which happened many years ago when the motor vehicle licensing duty was imposed in a Budget. I endeavoured to explain on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, how this is not a hypothecated tax, but a method of enabling an industry to raise funds from within its own confines to help another section of that same industry.
The idea that this is a hypothecated tax is completely contrary to the purpose of the levy. We feel that it would be alien to the purpose of the Bill if we were to introduce the idea of control by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have sympathy with the point that was made in this context by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden).

Mr. Ede: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman yet converted the Minister of Health to that point of view?

Mr. Renton: I do not think that I should be deflected in that kind of way from the limited purpose which I am now trying to achieve.
I should like to say a word about the Scottish position which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to make clear. Before making any appointments, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there is any fear that Scotland may not receive a proper share of the distributed money, there is a safeguard—at least, there will be when a Government Amendment is accepted, as, I hope, it will be, later in our proceedings—that a scheme submitted for distribution and later submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval can be modified, if necessary, by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
If any modification is necessary to meet a particular Scottish point, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will gladly do that. For example, if any representations are made that a greater proportion of the moneys available should go to Scotland, we would, of


course, consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before reaching a decision and do our best to meet him.
I hope that, with these explanations, the two hon. Gentlemen will feel that the points of view which they have sincerely expressed are not necessary to convert into statutory terms and that when choosing independent members who must exercise a broad, impartial judgment in the matters on which they have to arbitrate, it would not be right that they should be appointed specially for the representation of particular points of view.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We are in a slight procedural difficulty, because to support one Amendment we must vote for a different one. I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). His seems to me to be a quite different case from the one about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be representing a special interest, if one might put it that way.
There is a great case for the Secretary of State for Scotland nominating one of the members of the Levy Board. There is a great Scottish interest in this matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland is Home Secretary for Scotland. There is a parallel here. I notice that he has his name on the back of the Bill. It seems to me to be treating him in a rather shabby fashion to have him associated with a Bill in this way and not to be mentioned in it, although, in Scotland, he is an equal person with the Home Secretary in this country.
4.15 p.m.
I was sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department implied in his closing words that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not be able to appoint people who gave a broad and impartial judgment; he said that this was an argument for limiting the nominations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is just as capable as the Home Secretary of appointing people who exercise a broad and impartial judgment. It is because we support what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central wants, and not because we support what the hon. Member for Dover

(Mr. Arbuthnot) wants, that we feel that we should make this clear when the Question is put.

Mr. McInnes: I am not altogether satisfied with the explanation given by the Under-Secretary. We must bear in mind that in Scotland we have over 1,000 bookmakers, who will make their contribution to the Levy Board's fund or whatever arrangements are introduced. It is undesirable to suggest, as the Bill does, that this Measure is supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland when nowhere in the Bill, right from Clause 1 to the Second Schedule, has he any powers. He has no functions. He is not even mentioned in the Bill. He cannot undertake to appoint the appeal tribunal that may be set up for Scotland. He will have nothing to do with the proposed Bookmakers' Committee and nothing to do with the appointments to the Levy Board.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said, that is somewhat shabby treatment. It should have been recognised that Scotland has to play its part in the Bill. If it has to do so, surely it is reasonable to ask that in the main body which is being established under the Bill, there should be a Scottish representative who will have knowledge and understanding of the situation in Scotland. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to attempt to fob us off, if there is any dispute about allocation, that professional men can be brought in. I do not want to resort to that method. It could be avoided if the Secretary of State for Scotland were enabled to appoint somebody to the Levy Board.
I will only be satisfied by the procedure of enabling the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an appointment to the Levy Board so that either in the disbursement of the levy fund or any other aspect that may arise within the operations of the Levy Board, Scotland will be adequately represented. I hope that the Home Secretary will have another look at this proposition and give us fair treatment.

Sir James Duncan: The proposal by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) probably is not the right way to tackle the matter. As my hon. and learned Friend


the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, the purpose of the three members of the Levy Board is mainly to resolve disputes, and the chairman of the Board will have to look at matters from a Great Britain viewpoint.
I suggest, however, to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there might be another way of achieving what I should like done. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland in some way to be brought into all consultations concerning duties, appointments and that sort of thing which occur in the Bill, which are at present the duties of the Secretary of State, Which, in Parliamentary language, means the Home Secretary.
There are precedents for what I suggest. I cannot remember them in detail offhand, because I have not had time to look them up, but in most agricultural legislation, for example, which is United Kingdom legislation, the Minister of Agriculture nearly always has to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that it will be found in other United Kingdom legislation that there is statutory consultation which he has to take first.

Mr. McInnes: Not in this Bill.

Sir J. Duncan: In other legislation there is provision for statutory consultation between the two Ministers. There is the theory that the Government is one and that if one Minister is mentioned that covers the lot, but for quite a number of occasions that constitutional idea has been overridden. Perhaps, at a later stage, maybe in the form of a new Clause, the Under Secretary might consider, in all the duties and appointments, and so on, in the Bill, wherever the Home Secretary has to do anything, to say anything or to appoint anybody, that there should be statutory consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Wigg: As the Committee knows, traditionally I have great sympathy with Scottish nationalism, which I have expressed from time to time. The Committee would be well advised to look at the principles upon which this and previous Governments have operated, up till now. Under the Racecourse Betting

Act, 1928, under which the Totalisator operates, there is a representative board appointed by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a number of outside bodies. The Government, for better or for worse, have deliberately turned their back on that board and have gone for another kind of board on which there shall be representatives of the bookmaking profession, representatives of the Jockey Club and outside bodies, as in the 1928 Act.
Then, so that the Home Secretary, should discharge his responsibilities to this House of Commons, he adds a chairman and independent members. They are there because they are independent and impartial and not because they wear a kilt or play the bagpipes. It is their independence and impartiality that is the test. The Committee will get itself into a terrible tangle if it starts to look at this on a geographical basis. Where will it stop?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that in the past there have been very important branches of the bookmaking industry operating in Scotland—for the most part, down the century, utterly and completely illegally. I hope that these will now return over the Border, and that, now that it is legal, they will come to England and that Scotland will take its rightful place in the forefront of that part of the community that obeys the law and does not transgress it. Because Scotland has been breaking the law flagrantly for fifty years it does not give it any special rights of representation. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint someone merely because he is a Scot, to look after Scotland, is to traverse the principle on which the Bill is based.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Perhaps I may make a brief reply to the Scottish point. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made my speech as well as the English Minister's speech on this occasion. As an honorary Scot he might join the deliberations of the Scottish Grand Committee and make some of our speeches there for us.
The point made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), when he said the Secretary of State should be equally capable of appointing somebody with broad judgment, is valid. Broad judgment must be the criterion, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, and as everybody has said. We do not want to get into the position where somebody is exercising impartiality of judgment from the Scottish point of view and somebody else is exercising impartiality of judgment from the English point of view.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that there is no reason why both the members Ministerially appointed should not be Scottish, English or Welsh. They are not there to represent the difficulties of any particular area; they are there to hold the balance in any disputes between the functional interests of the bookmakers or the racing fraternity.

Mr. McInnes: Why is he there if he is not there to represent Scottish interests?

Mr. Brooman-White: He is there because the Bill applies to Scotland and because he will be consulted and will share joint responsibility. I believe that that is the position under the constitution. His responsibilities are constitutionally indivisible with those of the Home Secretary in matters of United Kingdom administration of this kind.
I think that that also meets the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) about statutory consultation. It is normally assumed in legislation that there will be consultation between Ministers, who share collective responsibility, and particularly close consultation in a case such as this, where the interests of the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, are identical in obtaining objective judgment and fair administration of these Measures over the United Kingdom as a whole.

Question put, that the words "two other Members" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222. Noes 180.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[4.26 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Aitken, W. T.
Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Allason, James
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Arbuthnot, John
Coulson, J. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Atkins, Humphrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hastings, Stephen


Balniel, Lord
Critchley, Julian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barlow, Sir John
Cunningham, Knox
Hendry, Forbes


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Dance, James
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hocking, Philip N.


Berkeley, Humphry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Bidgood, John C.
Doughty, Charles
Hollingworth, John


Bingham, R. M.
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eden, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bossom, Clive
Emery, Peter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Boyle, Sir Edward
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullard, Denys
Gammans, Lady
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gardner, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Eric (Biackley)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Godber, J. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Chataway, Christopher
Gough, Frederick
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Leather, E. H. C.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Green, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cleaver, Leonard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cole, Norman
Grimston, Sir Robert
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Collard, Richard
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cooper, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Longbottom, Charles




Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Temple, John M.


Loveys, Walter H.
Peel, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thornton, Ernest


Maddan, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maginnis, John E.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maitland, Sir John
Pott, Percivall
Turner, Colin


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marlowe, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Rawlinson, Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Marten, Neil
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rees, Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ridley, Hon. Nlcholas
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robertson, Sir David
Wall, Patrick


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mills, Stratton
Russell, Ronald
Webster, David


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Seymour, Leslie
Whitelaw, William


Morrison, John
Sharples, Richard
Wigg, George


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Nabarro, Gerald
Simon, Sir Jooelyn
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Neave, Airey
Sheet, T. H. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nugent, Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick


Oakshott, Sir Hendrte
Stodart, J. A.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodnutt, Mark


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Talbot, John E.
Woollam, John


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Tapsell, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Partridge, E.
Teeling, William
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Noble.




NOES


Ainsley, William
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Manuel, A. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mapp, Charles


Awbery, Stan
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grimond, J.
Millan, Bruce


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Milne, Edward J.


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter


Blyton, William
Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. s.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Morris, John


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mort, D. L.


Boyden, James
Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holt, Arthur
Mulley, Frederick


Brockway, A. Fenner
Houghton, Dougias
Neal, Harold


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Charles A.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Owen, Will


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.


Chetwynd, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Collick, Percy
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George
Pentland, Norman


Darling, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Prentlce, R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrextham)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, George
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Redhead, E. C.


Dodds, Norman
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Evans, Albert
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fitch, Alan
McCann, John
Short, Edward


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Siater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackie, John
Small, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McLeavy, Frank
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, Julian







Sorensen, R. w.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)
Willey, Frederick


Spriggs, Leslie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Steele, Thomas
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stones, William
Wade, Donald
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Watkins, Tudor
Zilliacus, K.


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Weitzman, David



Sylvester, George
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Symonds, J. B.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Whitlock, William

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
and shall be persons who the Secretary of State is satisfied have no interests connected with horse racing which might hinder them from discharging their functions as members of the Board in an impartial manner".
This Amendment relates to the chairman and two members of the Levy Board to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The scheme depends upon the chairman and the two nominees of the Home Secretary being independent members. During the Second Reading debate hon. Members on both sides stressed this need.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has tabled an Amendment stressing that the members appointed by the Home Secretary should be independent. The word "independent", in his Amendment, would be meaningless in the context of the Bill, but because of the desire expressed on Second Reading, and because of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, we have thought it right to table our Amendment, which will express in the Bill what my right hon. Friend would do in selecting the chairman and two members to be appointed by him. The Amendment makes clear that they must be independent of racing interests.
I assure those hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who may be apprehensive about this that it is simply to appoint nominees who will be independent in the sense that their interests will not impede their activities as members of the Board. This phraseology will express in the Bill what all members of the Committee desire.

Mr. McInnes: I am glad that the Minister has agreed to the proposition contained in the Amendment. Having regard to the proposed constitution of the Levy Board as provided for in the Bill, I felt justified in taking steps to ensure that the three members of the

Board—the chairman and two other members—to be appointed by the Home Secretary should be entirely free from any interest—vested interest, if you like—in horse racing.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the hint following my Amendment. I give him credit for the fact that his Amendment is perhaps more explicit than mine, and I very gladly accept his Amendment.

Mr. Eric Johnson: In my view, this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. I have every faith in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will select and appoint completely impartial members. He has made things more difficult by his attempt to define "independent". I do not know precisely what he means by
interests connected with horse racing".
I do not suggest that I am a suitable candidate for the Levy Board. In any case, I am excluded by another part of the Bill. I have been an owner, a breeder and a trainer. I have had a licence to ride. I have had an interest in a bookmaking business. I am none of these things now. Have I interests "connected with horse racing"? I have not any at present.
I wonder who is covered by this proposal. I have particularly in mind those people, eminently suitable for membership of the Levy Board, who often act as stewards at race meetings and who have a very extensive knowledge of everything to do with racing, but who are not owners or breeders of horses.
I hope that the meaning of "independent" will not lead to the usual sort of triumvirate—barrister, retired civil servant and trade union official without particular qualifications. It is essential that these members should have an extensive knowledge of racing, and I hope


that my right hon. Friend will be content to leave things as they are, which, I would have thought, was perfectly satisfactory.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he was thinking of "independent" in the sense that these nominees should not be connected with racing. If that is so, there is great force in the argument of my hon. Friend, because such a situation would deny us the sevices of people who could be of the greatest possible use to the Board. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the question of independence must be clarified in the Bill, I hope that he will ensure that people who could be of value, but who are not interested parties in racing at present, are not excluded from serving on the Board.

Mr. James Dance: I support the views advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). When I first saw the Amendment I was worried about the words:
… satisfied have no interests connected with horse racing …
I was then told that the word "hinder", which appears a little later, made that expression less dangerous. In other words, these members could be interested in horse racing provided that their interest did not hinder them from making a fair judgment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether the word "hinder" is the operative word or not.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment. Somewhat to my surprise, yesterday evening I received what was called some notes on the Amendments. I did not ask for them, but I received them—and they did not come from the Government. I rather gathered that this afternoon we were to be treated more or less as a branch office of Messrs. Wetherbys.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Amendment, because there are so many suspicions about how this Measure is to be worked, and the Amendment will do something to

reassure those who believe that it will not be easy to work. There is supposed to be a levy on bookmakers. Even when a horse comes past the post first, it is sometimes difficult to make a levy on bookmakers, even when one holds a ticket. I am certain that this will be a levy on the punters. I am sure that in some form or other the bookmakers will pass the tax on to the consumers. The consumer always pays and the consumer in this case is the punter, who will be consumed by the bookmaker in the long run. I hope that the Government will insist on the Amendment.

Mr. McAdden: I would not wish to miss an opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend. The Amendment is perfectly sound. If those who have doubts about it will look at the Bill they will see that the Levy Board is to consist of two members appointed by the Jockey Club, one member appointed by the National Hunt Committee, one by the Bookmakers' Committee and one by the Totalisator Board. Racing interests are fully represented and the only point of having a chairman and two independent members is to try to give impartial and unbiased judgment on subjects on which the other members of the Board are unable to reach agreement.
In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend is pursuing the right course. I am the more fortified in that belief in that the Amendment arose from some remarks which I made on Second Reading, when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary undertook that these members would be independent. He has translated that undertaking into the Amendment. Horse racing interests are well represented and the Amendment will provide for some people of independent judgment who are not connected with horse racing who will be able to hold the balance between those interests when there are disputes.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: As we discuss subsequent Amendments, the importance of these three memibers of the Board being independent will become even more obvious. It was always my right hon. Friend's intention that the chairman and two members appointed by him should be independent of racing interests, and the Amendment has been moved to meet that end.
I would not like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) to think that "hinder" is the most important word in the Amendment. AU the words must be taken together. They serve to meet the need that the chairman and the two independent members should be independent of racing interests so that they are not impeded in their work. If we are to stand by the proposals in the Bill, as opposed to the Peppiatt recommendation, that is essential. The words make my right hon. Friend's intention more obvious to those who are to be concerned with the operation of the levy, and I hope that hon. Members will not press me to reconsider the words which, I believe, meet the occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "two members" and to insert "one member".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I should say that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this the Amendment in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert:
and
(f) one member shall be appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It would be very much to our convenience if we discussed them separately, Sir Samuel. We regard them as raising completely separate issues and, unless we can get satisfaction, we shall want to divide the Committee on both. If it is only a matter of convenience, and not of the Chair deciding what to call, we would like to take them separately.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that we had better discuss them together, because I think it unlikely that the second will be called if it is not discussed with the first.

Mr. Gordon Walker: "Unlikely" is a very odd expression in this connection. Would it be improper to ask how likely or unlikely it is that it will be called?

The Temporary Chairman: If the Amendments raise entirely separate issues, then we can call the second.

Mr. Gordon Walker: They are separate, because even if we do not get the second we shall still want the Jockey

Club to have only one member on the Board.
This is an Amendment to which we attach much importance. The Peppiatt Committee proposed that the Board should consist of a number of people, including one representative of the Jockey Club. When the Bill was issued we discovered, to our surprise, that the Jockey Club was to have two representatives on the Board, although all the other interests which were represented were to have only one each. There has been no defence or explanation of that extraordinary change from the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further I should call attention to the fact that his second Amendment would be out of order if this Amendment should fail, because the size of the Board is limited by the Bill and it will not be possible to move to add to it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am obliged, Sir Samuel. I understand the point.
As the Bill refers to
a chairman and seven other members
we shall have to do the best we can. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will have something to say on the substance of the second Amendment.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the Jockey Club and, I think, the National Hunt Committee are treated as if they were impartial bodies before whom other interests would appear, and, as they represented racing as a whole, they would be impartial in deciding between the claims of various interests which came before them. In practice, however, we think that the Jockey Club, although it represents racing as a whole, has very clear views about what the Levy Board should do which may well be controversial, and, therefore, it cannot be held to be impartial.
The Jockey Club has made it clear that it wants the highest levy possible, whereas other people, including the bookmakers, do not.

Mr. Wigg: Can my right hon. Friend tell me his authority for the statement that the Jockey Club want the highest possible levy? The Jockey Club has said, over and over again, not that it wanted any money, but that if there was a


scheme of reorganisation it would ask for a levy. It has never asked for it in the sense to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If my hon. Friend reads the Peppiatt Report, again, he will see that the Jockey Club was asking for a levy of £3 million, whereas other people were asking for about £500,000. The Peppiatt Committee said that the figure should be about £1¼ million.

Mr. Wigg: This is the main misconception. It has persisted all through these negotiations. Once the Peppiatt Committee was set up it obviously followed that all the bodies connected with racing would submit evidence. The figure of £3 million arose in this way. Mr. Astor, when he was a Member of this House, did some homework and wrote a memorandum. He did a sum based on the total number of stakes which could be won in a season. He took the number of horses and estimated what it would cost to race them, taking into account travelling expenses, jockeys fees, and the like. There was a gap between what could be won and the outgoings of £3 million. This £3 million entered into the concurrency and was bandied about in the Peppiatt Committee, but it was never put forward officially by the Jockey Club, or, as far as I know, by anybody else.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I can only go by what I find in the Peppiatt Report, not all the information that may be known about what was said when the Committee met. The Report clearly says that the Jockey Club gave certain opinions and that, in the Jockey Club's view, the figure of £3 million was not an over-estimate. The clear impression given by the Peppiatt Report is that the Jockey Club wanted the highest figure of all those mentioned and other interests wanted a lower figure. I did not think that that was disputed. It is perfectly clear from the Peppiatt Report. It therefore seems to me that I am justified in saying that the Jockey Club has an interest. It is not an impartial body in this matter and, therefore, it should not be over-represented on the Board.
There is, I think, another connection in which the Jockey Club has an interest, and that is that as little as possible of

the levy should be spent for public purposes, like veterinary science and education. On Second Reading I quoted a statement made by the Duke of Roxburgh to The Times on 6th April, saying that he was strongly against the proceeds of the levy being frittered away on a diversity of objects. I conclude that what he meant was that it should be concentrated on a few simple things directly connected with racing and that to spend it on veterinary science, and other things, would be regarded as frittering the money away unless the sums so spent are small. Such issues as these will be in dispute on the Board. In no way can the Jockey Club be said to be an impartial body representing racing as such.
It seems to me wrong that, as the Bill stands, those interests which want a high levy—the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee—will comprise three out of the eight members of this Board, three out of seven if the chairman is excluded. This is a gross over-weighting of what is a clear interest. There is a good deal of evidence that the Jockey Club has a great deal of influence which it can bring to bear, not only through its representation on this Committee, but in other ways. For instance, suddenly the figure of "two" members has appeared in the Bill, when the Peppiatt Committee wanted only one.
Somebody must have got at somebody to get this considerable change from the Peppiatt Report made in the Bill. It is a considerable change that this one interest should have its membership doubled. It is not mentioned at any point in the Peppiatt Report as having been put forward. Someone has been able to bring about this change, and it seems to me that the Jockey Club must have had something to do with the figure in the Bill, which is in its favour.
It therefore seems to me necessary that we should bring the composition of the Board back to what the Peppiatt Committee recommended. That is all that our Amendment intends. We think that there are very powerful arguments against making this very striking change from the Peppiatt Report, and we have heard no arguments in favour of it.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I support the Amendment, and if it


comes to a choice between two members of the Jockey Club and one in order to get a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on the Board, I am in favour of the surgeons, although I do not share the jaundiced view of the Jockey Club of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). There is an overwhelming case to be made out for the inclusion of veterinary surgeons on the Board. A small board is obviously desirable, but it is notable that no one so far has suggested that there should be direct representation of other racing interests. For example, no one has suggested that the Racecourse Association, the Trainers' Federation and the Owners' Association should be represented on the Board.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I do not think my hon. Friend is making a fair case. What they said was that if one was to be represented then they all should be represented, but they agreed that if all sections of the industry were represented the Board would become so big that the independent members would be completely swamped. The racehorse owners, the breeders and others got together and said that they did not want a representative on the Board as long as the other interests did not. The first that was heard about the veterinary surgeons wanting to be on the Board was when the Amendment appeared on the Amendment Paper. If the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is represented, then other interests will also want to be represented.

Mr. Aitken: It is possible to make out a very good case for the veterinary surgeons, indeed an exceptional case, because their position is quite different from that of other interests in racing. Other interests in racing understand each other's intentions and point of view very well. The profession of the veterinary scientist is a highly technical one. Veterinary science represents the one interest which ought to be on the Board, partly because it is a highly technical profession and, for that reason, should be represented. I shall try to show why this is so.
5.0 p.m.
There will be a lot of hungry mouths to feed when all this money is available. The increase of prize money, rebuilding programmes, the improvement of

amenities and many other causes will be pressed very vigorously by those who think that they will derive some advantage. But this one interest which is specifically included in the Bill but which is not included on the Board has a very special case to be considered, namely, the case for the advancement of equine research, veterinary science and education.
Like others in so many forms of scientific research in this country, veterinary research has had a rather thin time. It has had to limp along for many years with very little money, but if has done very fine work. When all the "tough guys" my right hon. Friend proposes to put on the Board start scrapping about who is to get what out of all this lovely money, at the end of a year or two, I fear, the second of the major objects of the levy, veterinary research and education, will be left very much at the post.
Recently, I visited the Equine Research Station at Balaton Lodge. There is nothing like it anywhere else. It is known all over the world as a centre for equine research. Every owner of bloodstock and every breeder in this country knows and values its clinical and consultative services. I am not sure that many people realise how much patient and fruitful research has gone on at that station during the last twenty years, and I am not sure either that everyone realises in how many fields those dedicated men have reached a point of near break-through which, if it were really massively supported now, could lead to enormous benefits not only for horses and other ungulates but in the whole field of animal research, and, indeed, in human medical research as well. The scientists at Balaton Lodge and Lanwades Park know more about haemotology and haemolytic diseases than anyone else in the world, and, because of certain characteristics of the horse's blood, the research they have done has a bearing on inflammation and allergies—especially as these are not only in horses but in human beings as well as in other animals.
In the virological research laboratory in Newmarket there is a tantalising background of knowledge of many virus diseases, and, with more staff and equipment, the researches could certainly produce cures and new treatments for a good


many diseases which affect horses and other ungulates as well. The station needs at least two metabolism chambers to follow up its new knowledge obtained in recent years in nutritional research. There are new techniques in dealing with bone fractures, bone diseases and bone healing problems which also should be developed. There is a need to expand the biochemical laboratory, which is hardly adequate even for present needs.
The station has performed autopsies on nearly every foal which died in the Newmarket area during the last ten years. Here again, in pathology and bacteriology as well ase in parasitology, any acceleration of the present progress could undoubtedly open up new areas of knowledge and treatment for young animals particularly. Hand in hand, of course, with pure research must go the development and improvement of the station's clinical facilities and consultative arrangements.
The station badly needs a good library. A good library with publication and indexing services and that kind of thing is just as important in animal research as it is in medical research. The people at this station receive inquiries and requests for advice from all over the world, but with their present facilities they simply cannot cope with them.
The budget of the Equine Research Station was about £40,000 last year, about half of that coming from the Tote. The rest came from voluntary contributions. It is really quite astonishing to see what has been done with so little money and to see how much work in different fields of equine research has been tackled and tackled successfully. If ever there was a winner on its record worth backing it is this station at Newmarket.
We have here an opportunity not just to put Britain in the lead in equine research. By stepping up its existing programmes and developing all the new leads the researchers at the station have found in relation to horses and other animals as well as human beings, coupled with a vigorous development of veterinary education, we could certainly make this country the dominant world centre in equine research and veterinary science.
There would be several beneficiaries from such a really massive development of equine research now. Exports, tourism, Commonwealth development, agricultural productivity at home, and international prestige are only a few of the long-term beneficiaries from the sort of programme I have in mind, to say nothing of the long-term advantage to breeding and racing in the years to come.
We all realise perfectly well that, irrespective of whether my right hon. Friend decides to accept the Amendment or not, equine research and veterinary scientists will benefit under the Bill, but I feel certain that, in order to have their fair share of what will be available to them, these people really must be represented on the Board. They are the ones who can do far more for the British bloodstock industry than the Jockey Club and all the other racing associations put together.
There is another factor which is very important. This Bill should command support from a circle far wider than just that of racing and betting if it were made clear that by accepting the Amendment that Britain was determined to keep and extend her lead and dominance in this very great branch of science.

Mr. Wigg: I do not know how it came about that the Government changed their mind. It is certainly no part of my job to act as a public relations officer for the Jockey Club, but there are certain things which need to be said arising from the points which have been made about the Amendment It should be recognised that racing is not only a business. It is also a sport. The overwhelming majority of people who are interested in racing are not in it because they will make money out of it. If they do think so, they very soon find out they are mistaken. They go racing for fun.
It is true, also, that there is some easy money about, and wherever there is easy money there will always be someone looking for it. Therefore, it is of absolutely paramount importance that the government of racing should be carried on by a body of men, whatever we may think about them, whose integrity and authority are beyond dispute. It is quite plain that the main function of the


Jockey Club, through its stewards and representatives, is to exercise its authority with an absolutely firm hand. There are many young men in racing who may not have had all the advantages of a very wide education and who may suddenly face high incomes and great temptations. Unless the hand of the Jockey Club is firm and is recognised as being firm, we shall run into trouble.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mt Aitken) spoke about the pre-eminence of British racing. Of course, we all want that, but the preeminence of British racing is recognised throughout the world by the performance of our bloodstock. We need to recognise, also, that the Jockey Club has an international reputation.
In a very humble position on the Racecourse Betting Control Board, I have from time to time had letters from people from far afield—for instance, letters from friends in Ghana who were concerned about the state of racing in Ghana and wanted to go to the Jockey Club for advice. People have come to me from out of the blue, wanting to be put in touch with the Jockey Club. There were people in Brazil who asked me to put them in touch with Wetherby's. Perhaps it is interesting to note that so conscious of public relation are Wetherby's and the Jockey Club that if one wants to find their telephone number one cannot find it in the telephone directory.
Of course, this institution has been going on since the eighteenth century; and, of course, one can criticise it, and indeed, the more one knows about it the more one can criticise it; but so far I have never heard anyone attack the Jockey Club's integrity. Therefore, in a Bill of this kind it is of paramount importance that its position and its authority should be recognised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) is a much better and a much wiser and a much nobler person than I am. Of course, he does not go racing. If he did he would have recognised that the Jockey Club occupies a quite different position from that of the National Hunt Committee. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not suggesting for a moment that the National Hunt Committee should be represented on the Horserace Betting Levy Board. It is to be represented by

one, and it cannot be left out, but the Jockey Club speaks for many times as many people. The value of the racing controlled by the Jockey Club, the number of races, the extent of its activities, all these are many times greater than the number or value of the races or activities represented by the National Hunt Committee, and the pre-eminence of British racing rests chiefly upon flat racing. Therefore, if we give one place to the National Hunt Committee it would seem to me to follow that we must give more to the Jockey Club. I would have thought the Jockey Club could have two places. I would have thought so. I would have thought there was a cast-iron case that, because of the authority of the Jockey Club throughout the world, it should be given special recognition.
But that is not all the story. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) knows as well as I do that a very considerable amount of work has been done on this Bill over a very long period. There are some who have had the good fortune to have come into our deliberations only at this late stage, but those deliberations and a great deal of hard work have been going on for several years, and so far this has been an agreed Bill. Of course, even though it is agreed, that does not mean that all the Members of the House of Commons necessarily have to agree with it, but I would have thought that they would at least take some trouble to find out the principles on which the Bill was based.
One of the fundamental principles, as the hon. Member for North Fylde said, was that beneficiaries should be excluded. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the old 1928 Act they will find a number of beneficiaries were left out; the then Home Secretary and others who hammered out the scheme left them off. Perhaps that is the reason why the Jockey Club went to the Home Secretary and asked for two representatives now.
I have no doubt at all that the Jockey Club is too modest to make the points which I have made on its behalf about its disciplinary work and the peculiar position which it occupies in the world of racing, but I imagine that it would have said, "We speak for thousands of employers in this industry. We speak for the interests of owners, breeders, jockeys, trainers. Therefore, we ask for recognition to be given to them through


us. For that reason we hope you will breach the principle of no direct beneficiaries being on the Board."
Let me deal now with the question of veterinary science. So far veterinary science has had help from the Racecourse Betting Control Board through the work of the charity trust of which by chance I happen to be a member. I am sure that those whose knowledge of this is much greater than my own and covers a much longer period will agree when I say that everything it has asked for has in fact been granted. Therefore, if it wants more it must come along and ask for more. The idea that it is being starved for money, if I may say so politely, is a piece of nonsense.

Mr. Frederick Peart: No.

Mr. Wigg: It is nonsense. Does my hon. Friend want to interrupt?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend challenges me. I was going to deal with that in discussing the second of the two Amendments, which I was going to move. Then I will answer my hon. Friend.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: That Amendment is not to be moved, I understand. If my hon. Friend says "No" to what I am saying, let me tell him that as recently as last week a grant for next year was approved, and it was exactly what was asked for—and last year and the year before that. Inside the limits of the money which is available all that veterinary science has asked for has in fact been given.

Mr. Aitken: I think that that is a little misleading, because very often people ask for what they hope to get and not what they would like to get. I could quite easily have given the hon. Member a list of projects at Newmarket at Balaton Lodge costing from £40,000 to £50,000, very good and very practical ones. I do not think it is quite fair to say that they get everything they need or that they are not starved of money. It is just not so.

Mr. Wigg: They are responsible people and would not ask for more than in fact there is, and within the sum total of the money available, as responsible people they have asked for what they wanted and have got it. They cannot get more than there is. If they want some

of the £1¼ million I have no doubt that the Horserace Betting Levy Board will look with a kindly eye in this direction. What I am controverting is the very unfair point that they have been starved of money by the Racecourse Betting Control Board.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is haranguing me, but I will answer his point later.

Mr. Wigg: Does my hon. Friend want to interrupt me? Do not mutter.

Mr. Peart: Oh, no.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was suggesting that a great deal more can be given. I am quite sure that it can; but it does have to be related to the amount of money which is available, and inside the sum total which is available the veterinary service has been given adequate treatment. The point I want to controvert is the suggestion, implied in what he said, that representation on the Levy Board is essential in order to get more money. That, I think, is an unfair reflection upon the work over the last twenty or thirty years of people on the Racecourse Betting Control Board.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member seems to me to be illogical about this. The whole object of getting a representative of the veterinary service on the Board is that more money will be available if it gets a fair chance of getting it.

Mr. Wigg: That is exactly the point I am making, that it is said that an increased sum of money for veterinary purposes depends upon representation on the Levy Board of the veterinary service, but does the hon. Gentleman not see that it follows that as soon as that happens breeders, jockeys, everybody else will do exactly the same?
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that there should be somebody on the Board directly representing racing interests who will act not as the representative of special interests however laudable they may be but will remember that in racing as in politics statesmen are essential. The essential need here is for a turf statesman who will have the wisdom and the detachment to take a synoptic view and balance one interest against another.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for admitting this. Out of his own mouth


he has admitted the case because he has suggested that the amount which the various interests will get will be related to their membership of the Board. I put exactly the other point of view. I hold the view that the well-being of British racing needs to be related to the position of racing on the world plane, and therefore I say it is the duty of the Government, bearing in mind its undoubtedly authentic voice in racing, to give the Jockey Club a place in deciding not only upon the disbursement of money but in the framing of policies in the interests of racing, of clean racing, of racing of which we are all proud.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I rise to support the Amendment to the effect that a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be included on the Board. I do so because I think that such a man would serve a very useful purpose there. I have recently had experience of the knowledge and the services given by members of the British Veterinary Association, and I have no doubt that not only do veterinary surgeons hope that in some way they would influence certain sums of money into the veterinary profession, but also that they would be able to carry out investigations as a result of their knowledge and further, by their membership of the Board which would be of inestimable value to the British bloodstock industry.
When we read about the intentions for which the money shall be allotted, we find that it shall be allotted for
the improvement of the breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.
It seems to me, therefore, to be quite logical that, if that is one of the declared intentions of the use of the money, a nominee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be on the Board.
I certainly do not go all the way—although I can understand his point of view—with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who stated that because the greatest preponderance of interest is in flat racing the Board should include two members of the Jockey Club as of right. Certainly I believe that one member of the Jockey Club, if he were a strong member—and I am sure that he would be—would be quite capable of putting forward the views of the Board

with force and that it would not suffer by having only one such member, especially when it is realised that in any case, whether there were one member or two members, the Jockey Club would be in a minority overall on the Board.
In the first place, of course, this money is raised from members of the public. It is not the prerogative of the Jockey Club or of any persons on the Board at all. The racing industry in this country is only pursued because of the interests of the general publice. Therefore, one finally comes down to what is best in the public interest concerning representation on the Board and the manner in which the money is raised.
Furthermore, we must realise—and this has already been stated—that the money cannot be raised voluntarily. It has to be raised by levy and, again, it has to come in the first instance from the public purse. If we are dealing with the public interest, I believe that the general public would be much more happy about the general circumstances if they knew that the veterinary profession was represented on the Board.
There is certainly an awakening interest in this country in general animal welfare. People not only think of the racing of the horses or of the bookmakers and others connected with racing. A great many people consider the welfare of the animals. In that connection, they consider that a highly qualified and highly skilled professional man on the Board might be able to exercise certain influences there.
Indeed, when we come down to the question of professional know-how, I am fortified by the rather indignant—if I may so put it—intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), who objected when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced an Amendment specifying what was meant by "independent" and which would make it perfectly clear.

Sir H. Oakshott: If my hon. Friend looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will realise that I was not objecting to the principle but to the method.

Mr. Burden: What my hon. Friend said—and I took it down very carefully—was that the definition of independence "would exclude people with special knowledge of horse racing. I


suggest that in this context veterinary surgeons have special knowledge of the animals used in horse racing, which is very important. One of my hon. Friends shakes his head in disagreement. Are we to assume that veterinary surgeons have no knowledge of horses?

Mr. Stanley: I think that my hon. Friend is getting terribly muddled. Of course veterinary surgeons know horses. That is why they have their jobs. But they know very little about the practical side of racing. I thought that that was the whole point at issue.

Mr. Burden: The Bill lays down perfectly clearly what is the intention with regard to the money. It states that it shall be used for
the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.
Therefore, my non Friend has made the case even better. If veterinary surgeons have no knowledge of horse racing, then I suggest that a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons sitting alongside members of the Jockey Club when disposal of the money was being considered might be a very good thing because all the members of the Board would then come much closer together than they are apparently at the moment, according to my hon. Friend, who, I understand, is a member of the Jockey Club. I suggest that that in itself is another reason for the inclusion of a veterinary surgeon.
There is no doubt that the veterinary profession and those engaged in the production of bloodstock and of improving its quality have much work to do together. I personally can see no valid reason why there should be such strong opposition from some quarters to the introduction on to the Levy Board of a member of the veterinary profession who must, according to the Bill itself, have a particular interest not only in the way in which the money is disposed of but, indeed, in the whole science of the production of high quality bloodstock and British racing generally. I trust that my hon. Friend will find it possible to include on the Board a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr. Peart: An Amendment was down in my name, but there was a procedural difficulty. However, I assume that that

Amendment has been taken with the Amendment moved and that we are discussing the position of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Before I deal with the Amendment, I wish to say something to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He has praised the Jockey Club and has inferred that we who seek to restrict it are seeking to criticise it.

Mr. Wigg: indicated dissent.

Mr. Peart: Well, I got that impression.
I am not as experienced as my hon. Friend concerning the Jockey Club. I am only a humble racegoer. I hope that he will not be pompous because he has this added experience. After all, on Second Reading, he said:
Since I have been on the Racecourse Betting Control Board I have learned that the Jockey Club does not provide the leadership which one expects. If the Home Secretary has a complaint against this important body, it is not that it is faulty but that it is diffident and incapable in this modern age, because of the way it works, of acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to give the lead which racing unquestionably requires at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 900.]
5.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley criticised the Jockey Club. I did not make that criticism. He seemed to argue that it now has great authority and that it is responsible for keeping a firm hand on racing. I hope it does. But that would in no way be affected by the composition of this Board, and it would in no way affect the running of the Jockey Club if it had only one member on the Levy Board. I hope it will continue to exert its authority, and that if there are any grounds for criticism of its work such as was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley it will certainly bring itself up to date. However, I must point out that I am not experienced in the workings of the Jockey Club.
I think it was rather unfair to chide my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for saying that he did not go racing. The inference was that he did not know anything about the subject whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley did know. I only wish my hon. Friend would show a little modesty in these matters. I wish


to deal with the Amendment affecting the Royal College. I am a member of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and have been for nine years. I rely on the experience of experts, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley when he talks about the Racecourse Betting Control Board.

Mr. Wigg: So we are all square.

Mr. Peart: We are all square. The purpose of this Bill is to improve breeding and the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and veterinary education. The purpose of the levy is to improve breeds of horses and, of course, to improve horse-racing. But, as I think has been established by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), we cannot improve horse-racing or the breeding of horses without proper veterinary practice and the development of veterinary science and veterinary education. I submit that the latter purpose is fundamental to this Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who raised the question of the state of veterinary education, would agree. Whether or not we are muddled about the purpose of this Bill, I think he will agree from his experience that if we have good veterinary practice, research and development, horse-racing will inevitably improve and that there will also be an improvement in breeding. There cannot be any separation of the two.
The success of this Bill and the use of the levy will depend very much upon how much money is allocated to veterinary research and education. I am glad that the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds and Gillingham stressed this fact in their two admirable speeches. Incidentally, we on these benches raised this point in the Second Reading debate.
There has been some argument on how the Board shall be composed. I do not want to get involved in an argument about the Jockey Club, and that is why I am sorry that these Amendments are being discussed together, for the Amendment that I wished to move relates specifically to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I know it is argued that no beneficiary should be included among the membership of the

Board. That is why breed societies, racehorse owners and other similar people have been excluded. I understand the point. But I assure those who make this criticism that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will not be a beneficiary. Certainly there will be institutes of research, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, which will benefit from the financial provisions of the Bill, but the Royal College will not be a beneficiary. If my hon. Friend for Dudley wishes to dispute that assertion, I will gladly give way.
I think it is accepted that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in respect of veterinary problems, veterinary science and education, is equivalent to the Jockey Club in respect of horse racing. Indeed, it is a statutory supervisory body. The Privy Council is in control, four Privy Council representatives being on the Council of the College. Many of my hon. Friends will remember the 1948 Act which was sponsored by the right hon. Tom Williams who was Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That Act imposed statutory obligations on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It will therefore not be a beneficiary in any way. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would, like the Jockey Club, be able to give advice on the use of the levy for veterinary science and education. I should have thought that that was logical and reasonable.
Emphasis has been laid on the question of beneficiaries, and I hope that I have refuted any suggestion that the Royal College will be a beneficiary. On its council are representatives of the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and London, as well as the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin. There is also a member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for the Republic of Ireland. This body, which has on it elected members, is held in high esteem all over the Commonwealth and throughout the world. This statutory body would be in no sense a beneficiary, but would be able to give its expert advice on matters affected by the Bill. I am sure that horse racing in general and horse breeding would benefit from its advice.
I assure the hon. Member for North Fylde that I am in no way criticising the Jockey Club, and that I merely ask him to remember that this body would be able to give expert opinion on how best the levy could be used for horse racing—

Mr. John Peyton: I am a little confused. Could the hon. Member explain whether, in his opinion, there is anything in the Bill to prevent the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons giving its advice? I should have thought that it most certainly could and would give its advice.

Mr. Peart: I agree that even if the Amendment standing in my name were not accepted, the Minister could probably set up an advisory committee to the Levy Board. But I would hope—indeed, I think it is important—that where we have the conflict of interests which have been mentioned, a body like the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, dealing specifically with the use of the levy for veterinary purposes, which is one of the main purposes of the Bill, should be able to give impartial advice to the Board.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend is anxious to establish that if his Amendment were incorporated in the Bill there would be no breach of the principle that no beneficiary should be on the Board. If he looks at the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, he will see that there were representatives of the Racecourse Association, Tattersalls Committee and of a number of other bodies which are not directly beneficiaries, in exactly the same way as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They would be as disinterested as the Royal College. They would have special points of view to put. But does not my hon. Friend see that if we put one such body on the Board, the demands of all the others to be on it would be almost impossible to resist? That is the very principle on which the Government are trying to establish the Bill.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has missed the point. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is in no way in that relationship. I know that I could explain this all night and that my hon. Friend would not accept it. I understand his point of view. But I am arguing

that the College is in no way a beneficiary. It could well be argued that the Jockey Club is much more a beneficiary and that the members of it are, too. Most of the members of the Jockey Club are connected with racing. How we are to find a representative who has no special interest in or will not benefit from the levy, I do not know.
Many members of the Jockey Club are owners and are interested in horse breeding. They are honourable people; I am not criticising them. But they will probably have a sectional interest, and I am merely arguing that for the purposes of Clause 1 (1, b), which deals with
the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education,
there should be a member, dealing with this main purpose, who has an impartial view as to how these funds should be used.

Mr. E. Johnson: is not the hon. Member aware that many members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have a direct interest, because they are trainers?

Mr. Peart: There may be an individual veterinary surgeon who has a special interest, but the College has no interest. In the same way one could argue along those lines about the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, or even say that the hon. Member for Workington and others, who are ordinary punters, have a direct interest in the racing industry. Let us not pursue that too far.
I merely argue that the representative of the College would be able to give general guidance on the use of grants to ensure that some of the levy money were put into important research projects which would provide fundamental information on animal breeding and diseases and on veterinary science. In the end, all this will benefit the horse. I argue strongly that specialist advice wil be needed on the use of the levy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley spoke of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Figures were given on Second Reading. I assert from all the expert advice which I have had—which is just as expert as that given to my hon. Friend—that veterinary schools and institutes, which are responsible for 99 per cent. of veterinary education and a


large part of veterinary research, have received in the past only a fraction of the money from those sources. I could tell my hon. Friend of a specific case affecting a university in which a grant was turned down.
I admit, however, that much has been done and that it is not the fault of the Racecourse Betting Control Board that it has been limited. We are to have a new board, however, with the creation of a large levy, and I hope that larger sums will be given to such organisations. I could quote figure after figure of the type of research which is needed. I have here a statement from the President of the British Veterinary Association, which is a separate body from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In a letter the President tells me that
The British Veterinary Association contends that the dispersal of funds to veterinary science and veterinary education can only be effected satisfactorily by a body which has a detailed knowledge of veterinary research as carried out by various universities and other organisations, and of veterinary education with its undergraduate and post-graduate problems.
I think that that is accepted
5.45 p.m.
I have details, similar to those given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, of the vast amount of urgent veterinary work and research which is required. I have a list which covers, first, science and the research which is needed into many problems of the horse, heart problems being one example; secondly, microbiology and the importance of work affecting contagious diseases, which has an important connection with racehorses and their transportation; and thirdly, the need for a quick investigation and development of research into parasitological problems, again mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. A great deal of money and staff is required for urgent research work into diseases of the foal, and investigations are required into many other specialised sections of veterinary science.
There is also a need, I am told, for important advances in the technique of veterinary surgery, particularly into bone and tendon surgery affecting the horse. Much of this work has been hampered through lack of finance. Much of it directly affects horse breeding and

racing. Veterinary education needs the award of scholarships, fellowships and assistantships for investigation into work on the projects which I have mentioned. In addition, it is argued by those who are specialists that we need more travelling scholarships.
We can therefore make the case that there is an urgent need for work of this kind and that we should have on the Levy Board somebody who has this experience. It is not so much the amount of money involved; that could be decided amicably by members of the board. It is a question where the money will be directed, even within the purposes which I have mentioned, and what type of research and what type of veterinary education should be developed. All these are matters for an expert.
I have argued that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is an admirable body for this purpose and that one member of the Levy Board should be sponsored by the College, not because the College consists of veterinary surgeons but because it is a statutory body and because the Levy Board will function more efficiently and effectively if this is done.

Mr. Renton: I think that I can best deal with both the point made about the Jockey Club and that made about the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons by explaining to the Committee how the board will be composed of three elements, and what the functions of those three elements will be. We decided on having a small board. The first element is the chairman and two independent members, chosen, as has been said on an earlier Amendment, because they are impartial, in the sense that they have no vested interest whatever in racing, although one would expect them to be enthusiasts for racing. The second element consists of the representatives of the racing interests. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that under the Bill the Jockey Club was to be an impartial body. That has never been our view.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that that had been argued in favour of the Jockey Club by those who spoke for it, but it is clearly not in the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that we understand each other on that subject, because clearly under the Bill the Jockey Club


is to be representative of racing interests in the broadest sense. The third element consists of the chairman of the Tote Board and the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee.
The function of the representatives of the racing interests will be to advise on the financial needs of the racing industry and of its various parts. The function of the chairmen of the Tote Board and the Bookmakers' Committee will obviously be to advise on the capacity of the Tote Board and the bookmakers respectively to contribute towards the levy scheme.
The function of the chairman and independent members—and this is very important, because it has a bearing upon the position of the Jockey Club—will be in relation to the collection scheme, on which they will have the last word. In relation to the distribution scheme they will vote as other members of the Board vote, but the Board itself will not have the last word. The last word on the distribution scheme lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
If we get clearly in mind who is to have the last word we find that in regard to both the collection scheme and the distribution scheme, it does not matter a bit whether there are two Jockey Club members or one—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Or any of the other bodies represented.

Mr. Renton: Yes, or of any others. We are therefore faced with this alternative. We can either have three representatives altogether—which we consider a reasonably small number for keeping the Board compact and not to outweigh either the independent members or the chairmen of the Bookmakers' Committee and the Tote Board—or we can have, as was done under the 1928 Act with the Tote Boards, a very large board that represents the interests of veterinary science, the Race Course Association and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
We decided on a compact Board, and hope that we have carried the Committee with us to that extent. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by the fact that under the procedure in the Bill it does not matter whether we have two Jockey Club members or one—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Or any of the other bodies represented.

Mr. Renton: I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has displayed his interest in the debate by being absent during practically the whole of it. I would wish that he would let me explain the position, because many hon. Members have spoken whom he did not hear.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this point, I must tell the Committee that I am very sorry to have been absent, but I had to go to a very important meeting, which I cut short as soon as I could. I interrupted only when the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to something in my speech.

Mr. Renton: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that now he has come back he will do me the courtesy of listening, instead of interrupting from his seat.
We have chosen two Jockey Club members rather than one for just the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He was in no sense a party to the consultations, but news naturally travels, and it has been felt by many of the various bodies inside the racing industry that as long as there was adequate representation of racing interests there was no need for individual representations of the many bodies concerned. It is on that assumption—and, indeed, on that understanding—that various bodies such as the Race Horse Breeders' Association, the Race Course Association and others have been content to have their interests represented by the Jockey Club, provided that the Jockey Club was represented by two members and not just one. We feel that it is not unreasonable.
In dealing with the question of the interests of veterinary science, may I say that it gives me the first opportunity I have ever had in the House of Commons of paying my tribute to the veterinary profession, on whose services I have so often called; never more than two or three months goes by without my having to call on it to tend one or other of the animals in which I am interested. Theirs is indeed a dedicated profession and one which, especially in the context of horse


racing, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, needs to be encouraged.
Under the 1928 Act the Racecourse Betting Control Board undoubtedly did its best within its limited resources. That Board's work resulted in the Equine Research Station at Newmarket, referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) receiving about £20,000 last year and, I understand, other sums in previous years. Quite clearly, once we get the levy scheme going there will be more money to distribute than there has been in the past, and it is clear that veterinary science should benefit from that to an increasing extent.
What the Committee has now been considering for the last hour or two is how that can best be achieved. For the reasons I have given—namely, our desire to have a compact Board, our desire to have the interests of the racing industry represented in the broadest way and not by separate representation of interest that might directly benefit—we do not feel that it is necessary or wise to have a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on the Board, more especially because the interests of the Royal College extend far beyond the interests of the treatment of horses. The Royal College is concerned with all animals.
What is to be done? If the organisations connected with veterinary science wish to obtain grants from the Levy Board their proper course, as for other beneficiaries, will be to make representations to that effect to the Board. It will then be for the Board to make the provision it considers appropriate in the distribution scheme.
There is, however, a further safeguard and, I suggest, a very important one. If veterinary science interests consider that they are not receiving a sufficient grant from the Board they can make representation to the Secretary of State, and if the Government Amendment to Clause 2 is accepted, the Secretary of State will have power to approve the distribution scheme with modifications. Among the modifications that it will be open for him to make would be an increase in the amount suggested by the Levy Board for veterinary science. The interests of veterinary science will, therefore, be safeguarded

without a member of the Royal College being on the Levy Board.
For those reasons, and after this interesting and helpful debate, I suggest that our best plan is to leave the Bill as it is, because if we start upsetting the rather careful balance, and the carefully worked out machinery by which these three elements on the Levy Board will co-operate with each other, we may be in a very great difficulty.

Mr. Peart: The Under-Secretary has not responded to our case, and I asked him, if he did not intend to make a response, to say whether the Secretary of State had considered setting up an advisory committee. That is not a new thing. For example, the Agricultural Research Council has funds and is advised by the Anicals Standing Committee and the Soils Committee, both composed of experts. On the Animals Standing Committee there are representatives of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Chief Veterinary Adviser of the Ministry of Agriculture. If we are not to move in the direction I suggested, is there the possibility of an advisory committee being set up?

Mr. Renton: I was not at all sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant a committee to advise the Levy Board or one to advise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or both.

Mr. Peart: I was thinking of it in terms of advice to the Levy Board, but if it is knocked down by the Government, I hope that the Minister will be advised in other ways.

Mr. Renton: I should have thought, with great respect, that an advisory committee would be superfluous. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which the hon. Gentleman is, and for many years has been a distinguished member, is a responsible body, and any representations that it might care to make to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or to the Levy Board will be accepted with great respect and given the most careful consideration.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I shall be short with my remarks because the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has already, despite the sharp rebuke he got for immodesty from his Front Bench, deployed very


strongly the arguments that are relevant to this question. On the first Amendment, I follow him very largely for the reasons which he gave, though I cannot resist the temptation to add that I hope that some of the members of the Levy Board, including the Jockey Club representatives, will go racing from time to time as ordinary members of the public and that they will inflict upon themselves the misery of the meals offered at some race-courses, because that would be a valuable and chastening experience.
It is proposed through these Amendments to include on the Board a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I see nothing in the Bill to preclude that body giving any advice which it likes to the Board. I cannot contemplate the Board being so asinine as to refuse to listen to that advice.
The other point which I want to make strongly—I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not touch upon it as much as he could have done—is that if the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is to be admitted to representation on the Board, there will be a great many more demands than there have yet been for membership. The Race Course Association has a considerable interest and a heavy liability in this matter, but has been very restrained in not pressing what is at least a very strong case.
The claims by all these bodies should be resisted. The argument was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) when he said that the danger was that the independent members would be swamped. I believe that the independent members in this scheme have an enormously important place. I go racing not as an owner but as a potential loser to the bookmaker, and I shall be delighted to feel that at long last there are independent people on such a Board who will have an opportunity of directing my losings to some profitable use from which the ordinary racegoing public may benefit.

Mr. Ede: The Temporary Chairman who preceded you in the Chair, Sir William, pointed out that one of the difficulties that compelled us to take these two Amendments together was the fact that the membership of the Levy

Board is limited to a chairman and seven members, and therefore we have rather drifted into the unfortunate position of arguing either for the Jockey Club or for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, bath of which I believe to be, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State, respected institutions.
I heartily support the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The only meal I ever have at a race meeting is when I am invited by the stewards to lunch with them.

Mr. Peyton: They have never asked me.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member should put his claim forward. I hope that the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the special position of the Royal College will not fall on deaf ears in the Government. If the Government were to alter the word "seven" to "eight" in Clause 1 (2) and to bring in the Royal College, the situation would be well met, because I believe that the College is in a very different position from any of the other bodies that have been mentioned.
The College represents an attitude to this problem quite different from that of the racecourse executives—though I am well aware of their difficulties—and of any other people concerned. The point that has been made is well worth further consideration, and it was unfortunate that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in framing their Amendments, did not spy the difficulty in which they would be ultimately involved—that if we are to have the College on the Levy Board, we must leave somebody else off. I hope that on Report that difficulty may be resolved.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that with these two Amendments we are dealing with two quite separate points. The first is whether it is necessary or desirable to have two members of the Jockey Club on the Levy Board, and the second is whether the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be represented on the Board.
The Home Secretary, who has been with us during the latter part of this


debate, will have heard what has been said. I thought that the speech of the Under-Secretary of State was most disappointing and unsatisfactory. He gave no real reason why there was any necessity to have two members of the Jockey Club on the Levy Board.

Mr. Ede: I suggest that it is because we have to have one to watch the other.

Mr. Fletcher: That is probably the best reason yet given. The Under-Secretary of State said that it did not matter whether there were two members or one member of the Jockey Club on the Board.

Mr. Renton: From the point of view of taking responsibility under the various schemes.

Mr. Fletcher: Nor did he indicate any other reason why there was any merit in having two members on the Board. The Peppiatt Committee was careful to recommend that there should be only one member of the Club on the Board, and nothing has been said in this debate to indicate that it is necessary or desirable that the membership should be weighted in this way by having two Jockey Club representatives.

Mr. E. Johnson: The Peppiatt Committee only recommended one independent member besides the chairman, but we now have representation of the Jockey Club in the ratio of two members to eight instead of the ratio of one to five. It does not make much difference.

Mr. Fletcher: It is odd that in choosing an additional member from the Jockey Club to serve on the Board it was thought necessary to say that there should now be three independent members instead of one, as recommended by the Peppiatt Committee.
I believe that we are all agreed that this should be a small compact body, and it is unnecessary that it should be weighted unduly by any one interest. Like the Under-Secretary of State, I do not much mind whether there are two members or one member of the Jockey Club on the Board, but I am insistent that, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have given, it is highly desirable that somebody should be on the Board to represent the special interests of veterinary science.
Representations to this effect have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I hope that the Government will now recognise that the claims of veterinary science stand in a special category. In the past, veterinary science has been neglected and starved. It was noticeable when he had a debate in May on a Motion moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that when the Home Secretary replied and adumbrated various ideas about the Levy Board in connection with collection and distribution, the right hon. Gentleman made no reference at all to the fact that one of the legitimate purposes of raising money in this unusual way should be to assist and encourage veterinary science. We were glad to find that the Peppiatt Committee dealt with this and that in the Bill it is a recognised object for which the Levy Board can distribute money. The fact has been mentioned over and over again in debate that there is a widespread feeling that much more should be done in this country than is being done at present for the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and research.
This is an important national interest. The Bill and the machinery for raising money in the way provided for in the Bill gives an opportunity for ensuring that a branch of science which has long been neglected should now have abundant opportunities for having that leeway made up and rectified. We feel that this cannot be adequately done unless there is a representative on the Levy Board who on all occasions will be able to state with authority the special interests of veterinary science. The purely horse racing, horse breeding and racecourse interests are represented by the other members of the Levy Board, particularly those who will be appointed to represent the Jockey Club. Veterinary science calls for some special recognition.
It is no good the Under-Secretary saying that when it comes to the distribution of the levy it will not be the Levy Board that will have the last word but the Home Secretary. I remind him that the Board will have to consider the total of the levy and that in considering that


total the claims of veterinary science and research are not unimportant. I do not want to pursue the matter further. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will register their sense of the importance of the Amendment by dividing the Committee, and that as a result of what has been said on both sides of

the Committee the Government will have second thoughts and will give effect to what has been expressed by reconsidering the matter on Report.

Question put, That "two members" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 171.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[6.13 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Allason, James
Gardner, Edward
Marlowe, Anthony


Arbuthnot, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)>
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Balniel, Lord
Godber, J. B.
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)


Barber, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barter, John
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Grimond, J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bidgood, John C.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Nabarro, Gerald


Bingham, R. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Alrey


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bossom, Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Box, Donald
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Percival, Ian


Bullard, Denys
Hendry, Forbes
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hiley, Joseph
Pitman, I. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott, Percivall


Cary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Cleaver, Leonard
Holt, Arthur
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cole, Norman
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Rees, Hugh


Collard, Richard
Hornby, R. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Renton, David


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rippon, Geoffrey


Coulson, J. M.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Iremonger, T. L.
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Seymour, Leslie


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Shaw, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Simon, Sir Jooelyn


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Skeet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Deedes, W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stanley, Hon. Richard


de Ferranti, Basil
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, J. A.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, Charles
Leather, E. H. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Duncan, Sir James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Eden, John
Lilley, F. J. P.
Teeling, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longbottom, Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farr, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maginnls, John E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis




Wade, Donald
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Wall, Patrick
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)



Webster, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Whitelaw, William
Woodhouse, C. M.
Mr. Sharples.


Wigg, George
Woodnutt, Mark





NOES


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver, G. H


Aitken, W. T.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, A. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles A.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Enrys (s. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman


Benson, Sir George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Prentice, R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blyton, William
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Janner, Barnett
Randall, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyden, James
Jeger, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, Edward


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Cronin, John
Ledger, Ron
Sorensen, R. w.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, Norman
McAdden, Stephen
Swain, Thomas


Donnelly, Desmond
McCann, John
Sylvester, George


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mackie, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert
McLeavy, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric




Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marsh, Richard
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Meillsh, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Morris, John
Zilliacus, K.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
Dr. Broughton and


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Redhead.

Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "Act", to insert "or his deputy".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time we discussed the Amendment in page 2, line 8, after "Board", insert "or his deputy".

Mr. McAdden: The fact that I move the Amendment briefly does not mean that I do not feel strongly about it. I will be brief because I believe that the Committee wants to make progress as rapidly as possible.
We had a fairly extensive debate on the last Amendment. This Amendment is transparently clear in its intent. The


chairman for the time being of the Bookmakers' Committee or his deputy should be entitled to attend meetings of the Levy Board, and similar provision should be made for the chairman of the Tote Board, or his deputy, to attend meetings of the Board.
It might be argued that if one allows a deputy for the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee and the chairman of the Tote Board it might be desirable for other people to have deputies as well. That is a matter which, if we felt strongly about it, could probably be put right on Report.
I think that the two things are different. It is the Bookmakers' Committee and the Tote Board which will provide the cash. The others will decide how it is to be spent. It seems to me reasonable that those who pay the piper should be reasonably certain of having a chance of cheeping a little of the tune when the time comes. If it is limited to the chairman of each of the contributing bodies without allowance for illness or for a deputy to attend, it seems that the strong views they might have on these questions would be unrepresented.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think the Amendment reasonable, that he will recognise that there is a distinction between these two contributing members of the Board and the recipient members of the Board, and will see fit exceptionally to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: We have some sympathy with the Amendment, but there are certain difficulties about it which I think the Committee should bear in mind. First, we are very anxious that this Levy Board should be considered of the greatest importance by its members. It will have most important functions to perform. It will deal with very large sums of money. We hope that every member of the Board will do his utmost to attend every meeting of the Board and that it will not easily be thought that a deputy will do instead. On the other hand, if the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee or the chairman of the Tote Board were to be afflicted by illness, it would certainly be unfortunate if a meeting of the Board had to be postponed, perhaps for some time, to ensure their attendance.
There is a further point about the Amendment. By implication it rather suggests that a member of the Board is there merely to represent the interests of the Tote or the bookmakers as the case may be, whereas we hope that, whatever the final responsibility for the decisions of the Board may be, as I explained to the Committee on the previous Amendment, all members of the Board will feel it their duty to take part in the discussion on all matters both as to collection and distribution of money which will fall within the responsibility of the Board.
It might be felt that if deputies could be sent they would not be fully empowered. However, subject to what other views may be expressed, my advice to the Committee would be not to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment but to give us the opportunity of considering the matter further in the light of what my hon. Friend has said and in the light of any views which may be expressed by other hon. Members.

Sir H. Oakshott: My hon. and learned Friend has asked for views on the Amendment. In one sentence, I ask him to consider this most seriously. I recognise that this Board should be regarded as extremely important and influential and that membership of it should be taken seriously.
None the less, one can visualise the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee—or the chairman of the Tote Board—being incapacitated perhaps through falling over his umbrella at Newmarket and breaking his leg and therefore being unable to attend the meeting. Some provision should be made for a deputy to represent him.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look into this question to see whether he could not put down something on Report to cover the point.

Mr. Ede: I support the request made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), but I hope that if a provision for this is put into the Bill the Bookmakers' Committee, or the Tote Board, as the case may be, will designate the person who is to attend as a deputy. It will not do to have the chairman ringing somebody up on the telephone and saying: "I am sorry old boy but I want to go to the Leger. If you turn up tomorrow you will oblige me very much". It should be understood that it


is A.B. who is the chairman and that it is C.D. who has been appointed by the body concerned to be his deputy for the kind of contingency envisaged in the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I can hardly imagine the Levy Board deciding to meet on the day of the Leger. Nevertheless, I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. As I said earlier, if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment I undertake to consider the matter further before the Report stage.

Mr. McAdden: In view of the undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend, I willingly seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, having drawn to his attention the fact that not only might the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee break his leg, but if the impost was too high he might have his leg broken and be unable to attend the meeting. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear this contingency in mind when we consider the Bill on Report.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: No.

Amendment negatived

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
, but the Chairman and other two members appointed by the Home Secretary shall be appointed for a definite term of years".
This brings us back to the appointment by the Home Secretary of the chairman and two independent members, about which we have had a certain amount of debate this afternoon, although we know very little more than we did as to the intentions of the Government in the matter of the persons to be appointed. It is a little confusing to find that they are to be removable at pleasure, and apparently they are not to be appointed for a fixed term of years. The subsection says:
any person appointed to be a member of the Levy Board under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection may be removed from the Board at any time by the person by whom he was appointed.
That is understandable as it relates to the two representatives of the Jockey

Club and the representative of the National Hunt Committee, but it is difficult to understand why it should apply to the representatives appointed by the Home Secretary.
If this were a Bill of constitutional importance it would be very queer to find such a provision. On the face of it, it would appear that in the event of disagreement these three gentlemen can receive a moment's notice. That will not provide continuity, and it has been the criticism of some members of the Racecourse Betting Control Board that there has been a lack of continuity in the past. I suggest that continuity will be needed in respect of the appointments of these three gentlemen.
Secondly, I suggest that unless my right hon. Friend can offer the people who are regarded as possibilities for these jobs a definite term of office it is very unlikely that he will get the best sort of people to carry out this work. I therefore hope that he will agree to write into the Bill a provision laying down a definite term of office for the three key members of the Levy Board.

Mr. E. Johnson: I support what my hon. Friend has said, and not only for the reasons that he gave. I believe that the converse argument also has some bearing on the matter. These members of the Levy Board will have a great deal of power, and it is not desirable that they should hold office indefinitely. That is one reason why their term should be limited. At the same time, they should have security of tenure for a specified time. I support the Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: The wording of the subsection follows that of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, in providing that members of the Levy Board shall hold office at pleasure. When I saw the Amendment I went into the matter in rather greater detail and found that in the statutes where this problem arises it has been dealt with in three different ways. The first way is that provided in the Bill; where the appointment is at pleasure. Some statutes fix a definite term of office, and there is the third alternative of fixing a term of office with power to extend it.
After considering the matter I came to the conclusion that there are arguments in favour of all three courses. The point in favour of the course proposed


in the Bill at present is that it enables my right hon. Friend to review the position from time to time, according to the conditions of the job and the commitments of the office holders. He would not be committed to confirming in office someone who was unlikely to be able to give sufficient time to it. On the other hand, the present procedure leads to some feeling of insecurity on the part of the members concerned. It also makes it more difficult for my right hon. Friend to persuade a member to relinquish office if no term is stated.
My present advice to the Committee is that we should reconsider the matter. My right hon. Friend's inclination is to write into the Bill the third of the courses to which I have referred. The appointment would then be for a specified period, with power for my right hon. Friend to extend it annually if he thinks fit. I commend that course to the Committee, and if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment we will consider the point and, probably, on Report move an Amendment on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. Wingfield Dighy: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me in this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Oakshott: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out subsection (9).

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): It would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 7, page 9, line 15, leave out subsection (8).

Sir H. Oakshott: My hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment to explore the possibility of reducing the scope of disqualification at present written into the Bill. We believe that it goes too far. In regard to the existing Racecourse Betting Control Board disqualification attaches only to the office of chairman. During the Second Reading debate several hon. Members said that it was widely acknowledged that the effective working of the Board has gained strength from the presence on it of persons such as Lord MacAndrew—formerly Sir Charles MacAndrew—the

hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is on the Board now. Their counsel has been extremely helpful in the Board's deliberations and has advanced its work.
I do not suggest that it should be laid down that a Member of Parliament must be included on the Boards, but it would be a great pity if we deliberately excluded the possibility of their membership of both these Boards in respect of any office other than that of chairman, which I agree should be ineligible for Members of Parliament to hold. I imagine that it might be necessary to make some consequential provisions that Members of Parliament occupying these offices should not be allowed to draw any remuneration, although I think that it would be proper for them to receive travelling and subsistence allowances.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can indicate that he will meet the views of my hon. Friend and myself by reducing the scope of disqualification. I understand that it cannot be removed altogether.

Mr. Wigg: As the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) has mentioned that I am a member of the Board I need not declare my interest. I rise to point out one effect of the Bill as it stands. The Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee are required to make nominations to the Board, and some Members of the House are also members of the Jockey Club. If the Jockey Club, in its wisdom, chose an hon. Member as its representative on the Board, it seems to me that as the Bill is now drafted that Member would be disqualified from membership of the House. Although there may be a case for putting a prohibition upon Members being nominated by the Home Secretary there seems to be no case for such a prohibition in respect of Members nominated by an outside body.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will at least be able to give some attention to that detail. I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Bebington said. It seems clear that if any part of the disqualification is removed it should be on the understanding that no remuneration attaches to the job.

Mr. Ede: I mentioned this matter during the Second Reading debate and


I tried to draft an Amendment which would meet the detailed points involved were the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) accepted. We all know the problems of a few years back regarding the question of disqualification. An hon. Member would suddenly discover that he held some comparatively honorary office which disqualified him from membership of the House of Commons. One hon. Member, I recall, was an auditor and he audited the funds of his local branch of the British Legion. In order to do that he had to acquire some minor technical qualification and it was found, after he had done this work for several years, that by so doing he had accepted an office under the Crown and was disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. We had to pass an indemnity Measure to relieve him of that disqualification.
We were determined, when the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act was passed that in the future we did not intend people to be caught out in that silly sort of way. I am also sure that we were convinced that hon. Members ought not to be holding office in the gift of a member of the Government which carried a salary. That goes back to the original trouble in the days of the placemen.
I wonder whether the draftsmen could submit a Clause to the effect that when a man is offered an appointment, if he undertook not to draw remuneration, he should not be disqualified, but that if he did not want to give such an undertaking he would be disqualified. Then, of course, he would have the right, under the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act, to refuse the appointment. I am quite sure that the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is important, but I am also sure that if there are people—as we know there are hon. Members of the House—willing to perform some unremunerated public service for which they are thought to be qualified, they ought to have the opportunity to do it, if for no other reason than that if they got some employment like that they would not be such a nuisance to the Whips by wandering about with nothing else to do but make trouble.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment. I was a member of the sub-committee which examined in great detail the legislation which became the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), we all agreed that it was most desirable that in future we should remove the anomalous position resulting from the fact that it depended on a purely hazardous interpretation of the Act of Queen Anne whether in certain circumstances an hon. Member was disqualified from membership of this House.
When the 1957 Act was passed a great deal of thought was given to the question of what kind of offices should in future disqualify from membership of the House of Commons. My own recollection is that as the Act went through its various stages it was not only a question of remuneration which was regarded as a chief criterion for deciding whether a particular office should disqualify or not. I think it was in accordance with the spirit of the 1957 Act that on the setting up of this Levy Board it was agreed that membership should involve disqualification from Membership of the House.
The Committee will remember that the First Schedule to the 1957 Act contains a great many offices which previously had not involved disqualification from membership of the House of Commons. I recollect that one was the Public Works Loan Board. There was a time when a member of that Board, which is an entirely unremunerative office, could be a Member of the House of Commons. That was one of several offices which disqualified that were added in the 1957 Act. I feel certain that if this Levy Board had been set up before the 1957 Act was passed, membership of it would have been included in that First Schedule.
It seems to me that disqualification is particularly important when we are setting up a board of this character which has such very wide powers of taxation. We shall have something to say later about the powers given to the Board to impose taxation without any limit on a particular class of the community. That is one reason why I should have thought membership of the Board was inconsistent with membership of the House


of Commons and so I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: The Government welcome this Amendment which provides an opportunity further to ascertain the views of the Committee. Some views were expressed on this issue during the Second Reading debate. I join in the tributes paid by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and to his predecessor the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who have done yeoman service on the Racecourse Betting Control Board for many years.
As was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—I admire his expertise on this subject—we were, in spirit at any rate, influenced by the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act. I think I am right in saying that what we put in this Bill was influenced by that procedure, although not governed by it. It would have been open to us to accept almost entirely the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). It is true, as was said by the hon. Member for Dudley, that any representative of the Jockey Club nominated for membership of this Board by the Jockey Club, were he a Member of this House, would be disqualified from membership of this House. Similarly, if my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. MacAdden) were nominated as chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee he would be disqualified from membership of the House.

Sir H. Oakshott: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means would be excluded because of his membership of the National Hunt Committee?

Mr. Vosper: The reasons for doing this are, first, the general question of patronage under which a Member of Parliament cannot be nominated to fill a position when the nomination is made by a Minister of the Crown, and, secondly, the extent to which on a board of this nature he can relate his activities as a Member with those of being a member of the Board. On balance, we decided that at least we should

introduce the Bill as strictly as possible and disqualify all members of both Boards. I should have thought that at any rate the chairmen and the two independent members of the Levy Board should remain disqualified. I should have thought, too, that just as the Chairman of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is disqualified under present procedure, so should the Chairman of the Totalisator Board be disqualified under this Bill. But I think that different circumstances arise in respect of the functional members of the Levy Board and the three remaining members of the Totalisator Board. I do not think that the reasons for their disqualification are anything like so great.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) advanced an interesting point which we have considered, that this in some way should be associated with remuneration. We should like to consider that further. We have considered the issue, but we were anxious to obtain further views from the Committee. My present advice to the Committee would be that while the chairman and independent members of the Levy Board should be disqualified and the Chairman of the Totalisator Board, we should not disqualify the functional members of the Levy Board and the three other members of the Totalisator Board. That is subject to what has been said today and anything else which may be said in this debate. I ask my hon. Friend in due course to withdraw his Amendment because I think that in its entirety it would be unacceptable.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Member did not mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), namely, that all members of this Board will in effect be sharing in levying taxation on a section of the community. That is a very important consideration, which is quite different from the point about remuneration. It should at least be borne in mind when the Government are considering this matter.

Mr. Vosper: That is one of the reasons why the Bill was introduced in its present form. We shall certainly bear that in mind.

Sir H. Oakshott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said.


In view of the undertakings given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF LEVY BOARD.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end to insert
with or without modifications".
The Committee will see in Clause 2 (2, d) that a distribution scheme is to be submitted by the Levy Board to the Secretary of State for approval. That follows the wording in the 1920 Act in respect of the Tote Board. It was suggested on Second Reading that, particularly in order to meet the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education, the Home Secretary should be able to correct—if that is the word—the distribution scheme so as to make sure, if necessary, that the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education are properly attended to. With the aid of this Amendment, that would be possible, because the Home Secretary would be able to make modifications to the scheme. In the natural course of events he would of course consult the Board about any modification he proposed to make.
I should add that it would be open to him to make modifications about any other matter, not merely in respect of veterinary science and veterinary education. When representations are made to him about what the distribution scheme should contain he will consider whether or not a modification should be made. I think that this is an Amendment which will be generally acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends welcome this Amendment, but it is worth pointing out that its effect will probably be wider than the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated. It seems that it would enable the Secretary of State, if he so wanted, to turn inside out any scheme proposed by the Levy Board. I do not suppose that he would go to that length, but the words,
with or without modifications

are capable of very wide application. The Secretary of State could reject a great deal of the substance of any proposed distribution and insert his own wishes about how the levy should be distributed. It would enable him to disregard the wishes of the Levy Board and substitute his own ideas on distribution, because that is what modification involves. I do not dissent from that. I point it out because I think that it has a bearing on the subject we shall be discussing later in regard to Parliamentary control.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has made a valid point. It is true that, strictly speaking, on the wording I have proposed the Secretary of State would have a wide power of making modifications. In the nature of things, however, it is the Levy Board which has the necessary expert advice at its disposal through the various representatives on it. That would enable the right decisions to be taken about how the money should be distributed. It is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would make nonsense of a scheme originally submitted by the Levy Board, but he might make quite substantial modifications after consulting it.
We are in the difficulty from a drafting point of view that we are dealing with a variety of possible circumstances. We cannot start detailing exactly the modifications which the Secretary of State might reasonably make and those which he ought not to make. We therefore ask the Committee to say that he should have power to make modifications, knowing that that power will be used wisely and that the Home Secretary can be questioned in the House about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move in, page 3, line 35, at the end to edd:
Provided that any such scheme shall make provision for not less than seven per cent. of the moneys available to be applied for the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.
In moving this Amendment I am reinforced by what the Under-Secretary said a moment or two ago when he referred to expert advice being given on the preparation of a scheme and about how the money should be used. I stress that


in view of the attitude of the Government on the previous Amendment referring to the composition of the Board, when they rejected the idea of a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons being on the Board. I feel that we should write into the Bill what we have put in the Amendment.
I shall not make a long speech on this matter, for previously we have discussed the importance of veterinary education and the importance of advancing and encouraging it in every way. We suggest that this should be written into the Bill, especially in relation to Clause 2, as it is one of the main purposes of Clause 1 (1). We are seeking to create a limit so that the amount of money spent by the Board is not less than the amount stated in the Amendment. We think that is reasonable. It is a safeguard to ensure that the Levy Board acts in this direction and conforms to the spirit of Clause 1.

Mr. Renton: Our advice to the Committee is to reject this Amendment for the following reasons. First, it would fetter the Board in an arbitrary way. The amount of money which veterinary science will get, whether as a percentage or as a total, will depend, first, on the needs of veterinary science as ascertained by the Board. That will be quite easily ascertained, perhaps with the help of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who, I am sure, will not be hesitant in the matter.
Secondly, it will have to bear some relation to the total number of bookmakers and the amounts which it is felt by the Bookmakers' Committee advising the Levy Board—and perhaps, in the event of dispute, decided by the chairman and independent members—that bookmakers can pay. Then the global amount and the amount of the levy will have to be worked out. In the light of that, the amount allocated finally to veterinary science will be ascertained.
7.0 p.m.
If we tie the Board to giving a minimum of 7 per cent., it could in some future years, when the levy scheme is perhaps producing quite a large amount of money, lead to an even greater sum being allocated to veterinary science than might seem to be appropriate in the circumstances.

I must confess that I am looking some time ahead, and that is not the most material point which it is necessary to make.
The point which it is necessary to make is that we should not attempt to fetter the Board in its discretion in this matter. It will be a carefully chosen Board of men of knowledge and judgment, who will be able to obtain all the expert knowledge that is required. It will have to weigh the relative merits of the various proposals put before it. There is the further point that if we lay down a minimum percentage for one of the various interests which, under the Bill, it will be expected to foster in the distribution scheme, it would seem logical to lay down percentages for the other interests as well. Surely, that is a thing which we ought not to do when giving this opportunity to the industry to improve its own affairs.
For these reasons, my advice is that the Committee should reject the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I was tempted at one stage to put down an Amendment regarding the payment of money by the Levy Board, because there are one or two aspects of racing which I think require special attention. While I have not put down such an Amendment, I hope I may be forgiven for using this occasion to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to it, not only because it buttons his argument about what happens if we try to preserve these special interests. There is one aspect of racing which is particularly dangerous, but which gets little or no public recognition.
I refer to the boys, and many of them are anything but boys, who school National Hunt horses in training. This is a job that requires cold courage, if ever any job required it, and the Racecourse Betting Control Board has tried to deal with this problem, as it tried to deal with making a contribution to veterinary science on common-sense lines. It seems to me, however, impracticable to write into the Bill that a specific amount ought to be given for a specific object. I share the views of my hon. Friend that it would be desirable if it could be achieved, but I believe that in the end it would thwart the objective we have in mind.
I think that one of the very first claims on any money that comes in should be on behalf of the humbler members in


racing, who should get more recognition from the fund. I am not posing the problem of the need to help veterinary science, but I think we should better serve the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Pearl) has in mind by not trying to write it into the Bill, but by pressing the more fruitful line of trying to tie up all the various forces at work in the world of veterinary science to make joint representations to the new Levy Board to get as much as they can. I am not posing the problem of the horse versus the man, but obviously in the case of the horse there are some highly developed methods of approach. In the case of the man there is none. This is not an occupation which lends itself to organisation in trade unions and the like, and I hope very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of what has been said in the debate. Obviously, the Government will resist the Amendment, but I hope that the Under-Secretary

will draw the attention of the Levy Board to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and will perhaps do me the honour of drawing attention to what I am saying about the need for generous treatment through the National Hunt Benevolent Fund.

Mr. Peart: I was nearly tempted by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) not to press this Amendment, but I still intend to press it, because of the Government's attitude on the previous Clause. Clearly, we must press this point, because we feel that there must be some provision of this kind. Although there may be practical difficulties, on principle I must still press this Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 163. Noes 201.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mapp, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Richard


Awbery, Stan
Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Meillsh, R. J.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Beaney, Alan
Gunter, Ray
Millan, Bruce


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Milne, Edward J.


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter


Blyton, William
Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Herblson, Miss Margaret
Morris, John


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mort, D. L.


Boyden, James
Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hunter, A. E.
Owen, Will


Callaghan, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Chetwynd, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Collick, Percy
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dodds, Norman
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
McCann, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Forman, J. c.
McInnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, Thomas


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stones, William


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hn. John




Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Swain, Thomas
Warbey, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Sylvester, George
Watkins, Tudor
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.



Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Aitken, W. T.
Grimond, J.
Nugent, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Atkins, Humphrey
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Partridge, E.


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Bidgood, John C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R. M.
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitman, I. J.


Bossom, Clive
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Box, Donald
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Rees, Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Renton, David


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holt, Arthur
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornby, R. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Iremonger, T. L.
Seymour, Leslie


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Collard, Richard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Costain, A P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Coulson, J. M.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, J. A.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Teeling, William


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
McAdden, Stephen
Turner, Colin


Eden, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Sir John
Wade, Donald


Errington, Sir Eric
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marlowe, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Webster, David


Finlay, Graeme
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. G.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Woodnutt, Mark


Godber, J. B.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woollam, John


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, John
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Peel and Mr. Noble.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end to add:
(3) Every scheme prepared by the Levy Board and approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
I will not speak on the Amendment at great length, but it is a matter to which we attach considerable importance. It concerns the expenditure of money, not the raising of money, for that arises later. This is a question of the disbursement of the funds which the Levy Board receives. In our view, the distribution of the funds between one interest and another raises a number of matters of public policy and in the last resort should be discussable by Parliament at the will of Parliament.
The whole question of the share of expenditure between one interest and another is in itself of very great public concern. There are such issues as whether the Board is thought to be propping up uneconomic and unnecessary courses, which is a matter of considerable public policy, and there is still the question, which we have not been able to deal with by Amendment so far, of how much of the Levy Board's money should go to veterinary science, for example. It may be right that we ought not to tie that down too tightly in the Bill, but it remains of great concern whether enough is being provided year by year from the disbursement of the Board to these public services. It would undoubtedly have an effect upon policy if it knew that its actions and decisions in these matters could be discussed by the House—although, of course, they need not necessarily be discussed. Previous experience shows that a very tiny proportion of the sums available have gone to public services.
Since the Bill was before us in its original form, we have made an Amendment that the Secretary of State shall approve the expenditure policy of the Levy Board with or without modifications. He can therefore use, or refrain from using, his power as a Minister. It is therefore important that he should be answerable to us, because he has taken a new power to himself in the Amendment which provides that he can modify

the Levy Board's proposals or fail to modify them. This is a power which should be watched by the House of Commons.
In the Bill we are giving very great power to vested interests to do things which, one way or another, affect a large section of the public—all those members of the public concerned with race-going and betting. The hon. and learned Member will no doubt say that the Secretary of State has to approve this levy, and we certainly want that, but it is not enough. We also want him to be answerable to the House and to any hon. Member who wishes to raise any questions, particularly now that he has taken to himself this power to modify the board's proposals
In this Amendment we are not just asking that the Levy Board proposals, as amended or otherwise by the Secretary of State, should be laid before Parliament in its annual report, but that they can be prayed against by negative Resolution. We are not asking that there should be regular or constant debates on this matter. Had we been doing so we should have asked for the affirmative Resolution procedure. What we are asking for is the right to raise the question whether the Levy Board is distributing its money broadly in accordance with what the House regards as public policy and the right to question the Home Secretary about his failure or action in modifying the Levy Board's proposals.
Our Amendment gives hon. Members the right to raise the matter from time to time. Without the Amendment the matter could not be raised at all. The Secretary of State could act in some ways secretly. After looking at the Levy Board's proposals, he could modify them and, without the Amendment, we should not know how far they had been amended or otherwise. This would not lead to regular or frequent debates, but would give the House the right to raise these matters of public policy. It is because we think that this right should exist, even if only rarely used, that we ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: The Amendment has a purpose which every hon. Member must approve. We must accept that there are


certain difficulties. At the moment the system of control exercised by the Home Secretary is that schemes will have to go to him for approval. This was under Section 3 (6) of the 1928 Act. Even after this Bill has been amended along the lines introduced by the Government this afternoon, exactly the same procedure will be followed. Schemes will be put forward by racecourses or in connection with the travelling of horses and the like. They will then be discussed and become approved schemes after discussions and very close consultation with the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee. I do not think my right hon. Friend understands that these schemes are going on all the time. Discussions are going on all the time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I quite understand that.

Mr. Wigg: Then we have made the point.
As regards travelling allowances, a bout of coughing or a change in the weather from soft to hard going can affect greatly the amount of money which has to be allocated for those specific purposes. Therefore, if the Home Secretary is to come to the House of Commons with schemes drafted in such precise terms as to be responsive to the negative procedure he will either have to have a date after which no alterations may be made, or open a special department in the Home Office to consider the thousand and one amendments which will be coming in all the time. Some of these are tiny schemes, some are big schemes involving the erection of new stands, and some are schemes involving the reorganisation of racecourses.
Racecourses themselves want the maximum amount of flexibility. At the moment it seems to me that there is complete and effective control inasmuch as the schemes are hammered out on the ground by those who know most about them. They then go to the governing bodies, come back to the Racecourse Betting Control Board and then to the Home Secretary who can object to them if he wishes. The only argument is whether after the Home Secretary has approved them he shall then table a prayer which is responsive

to the negative procedure. It may well be that the Home Secretary has some administrative use up his sleeve which he can utilise for this purpose, but there is no doubt that those concerned with the preparation of these things at the level of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will view this with alarm.
It is not binding on the Committee, but it may be of interest for hon. Members to know that the Board has considered this proposal with very great care. It believes that the present method, which has been hammered out on the anvil of experience, should be changed only after the most careful and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. Renton: I think it is common ground between us that so far as the distribution scheme is concerned there needs to be a measure of Parliamentary control, even if it is of an indirect kind. Some measure of Ministerial responsibility should be engaged. The view which the Government takes is that the only effective control that can be exercised is through my right hon. Friend having the power to approve the scheme and to modify it if, in the light of any representation, he thinks it should be modified. As I said earlier, he can be questioned in the House about any scheme he has approved and about any modifications he has made.

Mr. Gordon Walker: How does the House come into possession of the scheme? How does it know and therefore come into possession of it?

Mr. Renton: The House can come into possession of the matter in two ways. First, any potential beneficiary which feels that it should have its interests properly safeguarded in the scheme and given a certain amount of money, and which feels things are not going quite as well as it should, can undoubtedly approach any hon. Member of this House and a Question can be put to my right hon. Friend about it. The more formal way in which my right hon. Friend's responsibility can be engaged, is through the laying of the report before Parliament, as can be done at the moment under the 1928 Act, with the report of the Totalisator Board. Such reports, either under the 1928 Act or the reports of the Levy Board under the Bill, can be debated in this House.
It so happens that during the thirty-one years of the existence of the Totalisator Board, so far as I am advised, there has never been a debate, nor do I know of a demand for a debate. That is naturally a matter which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind.
I think the difference between us is that the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman would render the making of a Statutory Instrument the condition of approval of the scheme. In other words, as I understand him, he does not wish any money to be spent under the scheme until a Statutory Instrument has been made and has lain on the Table of this House for forty days and either no action has been taken or, the forty days having expired, no action can be taken. That is his view. There should be that hold-up in the sanction of the scheme. We say that that is impracticable. We rely on the experience that has been gained in getting the Secretary of State's approval of schemes under the 1928 Act. What do we find there? As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out, schemes and grants under that Act are the subject of pretty frequent correspondence and so on, between the Home Office and the Board. It is not as though a scheme can be got out before the beginning of a financial year about which it can be said, "That is the final scheme. Please approve it in one go."
7.30 p.m.
It cannot be done. Experience has shown that that is so. As the year goes on modifications have to be made to it at the instigation of the Totalisator Board. Sometimes racecourse executives, having been given authority by the Totalisator Board and that authority having been approved by the Secretary of State, find that it is not just what they need. It may be found that one racecourse has slightly overestimated its requirements and another racecourse underestimated its requirements. In other words, this is a running operation to a great extent, although naturally some provisional budget is always worked out.
The Amendment would give rise to a further difficulty, which I think is conclusive. The amount which can be distributed each year must depend on the amount available. Incidentally, I hope

that it is not out of order for me to mention that the right hon. Gentleman also wants the amount available to be subject to prior Parliamentary sanction.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Even more so.

Mr. Renton: It would be a quite impossible position if both the amount available and the amount to be distributed were in detail to be finally subject to Parliamentary sanction as written into a Statutory Instrument, subject to negative Resolution—or, indeed, affirmative Resolution—but we are not discussing that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a degree of Ministerial responsibility, but in the nature of things it cannot take the form of a priori approval. It has to take the form of ex post facto control. I hope that the Commitee will forgive the Latin terms, but they are so compendious to explain the position.
Bearing these considerations in mind and the practical difficulties based on thirty years' experience, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the Amendment was moved I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press it.

Mr. McInnes: I am anything but satisfied with the observations of the Under-Secretary. I have never known such a controversial Bill where there has been so little Ministerial responsibility and, indeed, so little Parliamentary control generally. I rather gathered that the hon. Gentleman said that Parliament would get to know when such schemes were prepared and when such distributions would be made. He did not say how Parliament would learn that. That is what concerns me.
A scheme may be approved in March. Distribution may take place in April. It may be October before it comes to my knowledge, because no documentary evidence will be submitted to Parliament to indicate that the Home Secretary has approved the scheme and the distribution. If I tabled a Question as late as October, it would be a fait accompli. I should only learn what had been done. I could not make any condemnation of the type of scheme which had been approved, the amount of money which had been allocated, or the body to which it had been allocated.
The only extent of Ministerial control in the Bill appears to be that the Home Secretary shall approve schemes of distribution. He shall appoint certain members to the Levy Board and to the tribunal. He shall approve the remuneration and allowances to the members he appoints. He shall be responsible, in a way, for the appointment of the Bookmakers' Committee. Apart from that, there is no Ministerial responsibility and no measure of Parliamentary control. There is no avenue in the Bill which will enable Members of Parliament to learn what the schemes are, the total amount of money distributed, the bodies to which it has been distributed, and so on. That is most unsatisfactory. To that extent, I wholeheartedly support the observations of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McAdden: I fully appreciate the force of the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend. I quite understand that it would be very difficult for schemes to go forward at the right time if they had to wait until the whole thing had been tabled before Parliament and discussed.
Nevertheless, I do not think that it meets the situation to say that accounts could be placed before Parliament in due time and discussed then. It will be familiar to hon. Members on both sides that accounts are notable not only for what they reveal but, even more so, for what they conceal.
I make no criticism of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and I hope that it will not take my remarks as a criticism. I sought to find information as to how figures were broken down. Twelve months ago my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would write to the Board and try to find out. I have not had an answer yet.
It is desirable that we should have more information about the schemes and the break-up of the schemes into various sections than is so far provided. While I recognise that the Amendment is not perhaps the form of words in which it should be done, I hope that my hon. and learned friend will look at the matter again between now and Report.

Mr. Fletcher: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the

hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) have said, the Amendment raises an issue of primary constitutional importance. The Under-Secretary's approach was deplorable. He failed to answer the criticisms which have been made of this part of the Bill in its present form.
What is at issue is this. In the Bill we deviate from the recognised control by the House of Commons over financial administration. The matter was succinctly put in a debate last May by the present Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the whole basis of this method of raising money as being contrary to the fundamental principle that money extracted from the taxpayer should be paid into the Consolidated Fund and paid out of the Consolidated Fund only on a Vote of the House of Commons.
The Under-Secretary has not attempted to challenge the validity of the principle which is at stake. He merely said that it was impracticable to lay these schemes in the form of a Statutory Instrument. That argument, if extended, could be applied logically to defeat all the processes by which Parliament at present exercises financial control over the expenditure of the Government.
It is no more difficult to provide in a Statutory Instrument a scheme for the proposed expenditure of money raised from the public than it is to prepare Votes which have to be passed, year by year, whether in the ordinary Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates, before the Government of the day can expend any part of the public funds raised from the taxpayer and paid into the Consolidated Fund.
It is arrant nonsense to try to resist the Amendment on the ground that it is impracticable. Over the centuries we in this country have established a method of financial control over the Executive which is very rigid, and rightly so. There may be difficulties, owing to our Parliamentary procedure, in scrutinising all the items of expenditure by the Government. The Leader of the House has been engaged recently in devising methods whereby the House can spend more time examining and criticising Government


expenditure. If that is important in relation to ordinary Government expenditure, a fortiori it is necessary when money is raised, not by the ordinary process of taxation—through the Budget—but by this independent Levy Board which will be able to raise without any limit money by way of taxation from a special section of the community.
The Under-Secretary said that it would be too cumbersome to put this into Statutory Instruments. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said the same. I wonder if my hon. Friend has ever read any Statutory Instruments. They are laid before the House of Commons regularly.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments I know that hundreds of them are laid every year. The Minister served for a long time on that Committee and will be as familiar with that as I am, and as are other hon. Members. He will know that every Department—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transporti—is regularly dealing by way of Statutory Instruments with matters of far greater complexity than this.
He knows perfectly well that no great difficulty arises from the complicated nature of a subject in putting something in a Statutory Instrument for the approval of the House or, alternatively, giving the House an opportunity of rejection by means of a Prayer. That happens frequently. It has become our established method of dealing with delegated legislation. It is therefore absurd for the Minister to say that it is impracticable in this case.
With what are we dealing? We are dealing with schemes whereby this public money will be expended, and what we want to know within the scheme are the proportions in which that public money will be expended by the various bodies set out in Clause 1, in order that we may have an opportunity to criticise. The Minister has conceded the necessity for some Parliamentary control over the Executive of the day, but his argument was that that control is adequately safeguarded by other means.
He said that we shall be able to put questions to the Home Secretary and have an opportunity to debate the annual report. When my right hon. Friend asked

how we shall know what is in the schemes there was no satisfactory answer. The Minister said that any potential beneficiaries can complain. How, when a scheme has been made, is a potential beneficiary to know whether he is in the scheme or out of it? The Minister spoke of an obligation to lay a report, but there is nothing in the Statute that requires the report to set out the details of the scheme.
Let it be further observed that these reports are only to be made annually, and only at the end of the levy period. There is no time limit within which they must be laid, and even when they are laid it will be too late for the House to comment on them or to criticise them. The Minister, referring to the existing procedure for the Betting Levy Board by which it makes reports, said none of those reports has come up for criticism. In other words, it has been found that that machinery to give Parliamentary control is ineffective and valueless. Opportunities for criticism by Parliamentary Question will not arise here, and it will be even worse if, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley the details may be changed day by day or month by month—for which I myself can see no necessity.
I assume that at some stage with these schemes the Government will decide how much will be appropriated to the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and veterinary education. That is one of the statutory objects of dispensing the benefits under the levy. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown a great interest in trying to tighten the provisions of the Bill so as to ensure that adequate appropriation is made for these purposes, but how shall we know that it is made? If the Minister has his way, we shall not know until, perhaps, a year after the scheme has been made how the allocations to the other purposes of the Bill have been spent. That will not be adequate. It will not enable Parliament to exercise its duty of challenging, correcting, and criticising Ministers.
We feel very strongly about this. We feel that the Bill violates a large number of cherished fundamental principles, and that it will be tolerable only if adequate safeguards are written into it to ensure that at all times there is full and effective


Parliamentary control over the Secretary of State who is ultimately to be responsible because he is to have the power to modify to any degree he likes schemes laid before him by the Levy Board.
I believe that the only way in which this Parliamentary control can be achieved is by requiring the scheme to be laid as a Statutory Instrument so that anyone who so desires can pray against it. That has not only proved to be an effective method of enabling the House to criticise when it wishes to, but the fact that Prayers are raised against only a small minority of the hundreds of Statutory Instruments that are laid every year shows that the obligation to lay them has, in itself, a salutary effect in making the Government put into their schemes the precise measures they want.
It was either the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who said that it would not be possible to produce all these schemes with the degree of precision required. Why not? A degree of precision is required in the expenditure and application of public money, and this is one of the means by which Parliament can see that it is done. I hope that the Committee will insist on the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry to weary the committee again, but some of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) puzzle me very greatly. I said on Second Reading that I understood from the Minister of Health that he was a purist—a Gladstonian Liberal—but that I did not expect it from these benches.
I have been in this House for fifteen years, and remember the great debates that took place when we were nationalising certain industries. What were we then seeking to do? We were seeking to make those commercial undertakings responsible to Parliament, but the one thing that we on this side sought was to avoid, at all costs, interference in the day-to-day workings of those industries—

Mr. McInnes: We are not seeking to interfere with the day-to-day working, but are only seeking the opportunity of

reviewing the scheme as originally submitted.

Mr. Wigg: No, on the contrary. My hon. Friend cannot have listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said. He said that we had no opportunity of debating the work of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, but that Board's report for 1959 was available early in 1960. Its reports are similar in character, and just as comprehensible and lucid as the reports of any nationalised industry. All the details are there, and if hon. Members were not satisfied they could have sought enlightenment by putting down Parliamentary Questions.
This, too, is a great commercial undertaking, and if the Home Secretary or anyone else thinks that he will get any hon. Member to serve on these Boards if for every action they take they must first go to Newbury, and then wait for forty days, he is mistaken. They will not work on that basis.
As I said on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends seem to be in the great tradition of John Stuart Mill. I am not—I am a Socialist. That is why I support the Bill. This is an excellent Measure. It uses the power of the State to regulate an industry, to give it an opportunity to govern itself, and to be answerable to Parliament in the public interest. I should have thought that hon. Members would have supported that with enthusiasm—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is my hon. Friend now telling us that it is a habit of this Government to introduce Socialist Measures?

Mr. Wigg: Occasionally, yes. Occasionally, by the logic of events, the Government are forced to do so, as, perhaps, my right hon. Friend may one day be forced by the logic of events to change his thinking on defence. There is an irrefutable logic in these things. One cannot argue about the ultimate. Incidentally, the Home Secretary has always been an under-the-counter Socialist, because the major part of his life has been given up to good works. He is always recognised—

Mr. McAdden: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that we could resolve


some of our present difficulties by allowing the Jockey Club to take the place of the National Executive of the Labour Party?

Mr. Wigg: That is a very interesting thought, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can exchange views on it on some other occasion. What I am asserting is that it is quite impracticable for my hon. Friends to ask the Government to do as they ask. With great indignation, my hon. Friend says, "Of course, the Government have to know." How? Are they to create a vast bureaucracy that will go to every racecourse? Has every scheme to wait for the last jot and comma before it is put forward and

action taken, or is the Home Secretary going to have a starting date by which all the schemes must be in, and nothing can be altered? We want accountability to the public and that is done through the tabling of the annual report. I hope that the Levy Board will produce reports as good and as comprehensive as the Racecourse Betting Control Board has produced. I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 200.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[7.51 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Barnett
Rankin, John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, Edward


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McInnes, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bidgood, John C.
Bullard, Denys


Aitken, W. T.
Bingham, R. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Arbuthnot, John
Bishop, F. P.
Burden, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Bossom, Clive
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Barlow, Sir John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barter, John
Box, Donald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Channon, H. P. G.


Berkeley, Humphry
Bryan, Paul
Chichester-Clark, R.




Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hollingworth, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cole, Norman
Hornby, R. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Collard, Richard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooke, Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees, Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, David


Coulson, J. M.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, Julian


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cunningham, Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Curran, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Ronald


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Seymour, Leslie


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


de Ferranti, Basil
Lilley, F. J. P.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Duncan, Sir James
Longbottom, Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, J. A.


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Talbot, John E.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Finlay, Graeme
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gammans, Lady
Marten, Neil
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gardner, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Vickers, Miss Joan


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, John
Wade, Donald


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wall, Patrick


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Webster, David


Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Whitelaw, William


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wigg, George


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian
Woollam, John


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Miss Edith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott, Percivall
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Hocking, Philip N.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. Sharples.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(BOOKMAKERS' LEVY SCHEMES.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The total amount of contributions payable by bookmakers by way of a levy in accordance with a scheme having effect for any levy period under this section shall not exceed in respect of that period the sum of one million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
It is possible for me to speak to this Amendment with, I hope, commendable brevity because I advanced some of the arguments on Second Reading. I wish

to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that there have been very many occasions during the preparation and passage of the Bill so far when the advice of the Peppiatt Committee has been utterly ignored. It seems to me that the Government really must justify in some way their attempt to disregard the advice which has been given to them by the Peppiatt Committee, a very excellent and responsible body of people who might be expected to know something about the problem, especially since their number included the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who was known to many of us in the House of Commons as Sir Thomas Dugdale and who served the House both as back bench Member and


as Minister. Lord Crathorne is himself a distinguished member of the Jockey Club.
After having considered the question of how much should be contributed through a levy for the general benefit of racing, the Peppiatt Committee came to certain definite conclusions. In paragraph 61 the Committee said:
We are unable to accent the suggestion of the Jockey Club that a yearly levy of £3 million represents a realistic assessment of the requirements of the industry of horse racing.
This was, as I say, the view of an independent body having in its membership a prominent member of the Jockey Club. The Committee went on to say:
We recommend a levy of £1m.-£¼m. for the first year of full operation. This sum would provide approximately £100,000 for breeding and veterinary science; approximately £250,000 for increased prize money; and approximately £500,000-£750,000 for the improvement of amenities on racecourses.
This, again, was the view of a body of people independent in their judgment who unanimously came to those conclusions.
Her Majesty's Government have in the Bill sought to give power to a body outside Parliament, without even the approval of the Home Secretary, to fix a sum of money which shall be taken from private citizens in this country carrying on a business recognised by the Government as legitimate, and, further, they have done that without providing for any ceiling figure to be imposed upon the amount of money which may be taken in that way.
In my view, this is quite wrong. It is wrong for the House of Commons to delegate responsibility for taxation to an outside body without any limit on the amount to which it can go. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State suggested to me on Second Reading that perhaps I should be wiser not to insist upon a ceiling because, if I remember aright, to insist upon a ceiling would mean that we should set a target figure to which the Levy Board might continually aspire—or words to that effect. Speaking for myself, I would sooner take the chance of the Levy Board having a target of £1¼ million as the amount to which it should go rather than give it free and unfettered control to go as high as it liked.
All the views which I hold upon this matter have been fostered and encouraged by speeches which have been made from both sides of the Chamber emphasising the need of this or that supplicant for assistance from the bookmakers. I suggest that this Committee ought seriously to consider whether it is wise to give such wide discretion to an outside body to levy taxation. I have put down the Amendment in order to suggest that we should be guided by the views of the independent body which examined the matter and unanimously recommended in a certain sense. As I say, this body, having among its members a distinguished and prominent member of the Jockey Club, came to the conclusion that the figures advanced by the Jockey Club itself were completely unrealistic and suggested that £1¼ million was about the right figure to aim at. This being so, there is no reason why Parliament should not profit from that advice. We set up the Committee in order to have its advice.
I am fortified in my view by the experience of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who himself said that one of the problems which will confront the Levy Board in the near future will be an embarrassment of riches. The Board will have so much money coming into its coffers, so the hon. Gentleman says, not only from the Tote Board but from the bookmakers as well, that it will be a little puzzled about what to do with it all. This may or may not be true. I have never myself found it to be true that, when there is money available and to be had for the asking, one has difficulty in getting rid of it.
In the circumstances, I urge the Committee to take the wise course and be guided by the Peppiatt Committee. Let us accept the figure of £1¼ million suggested in the Report. At any rate, let us see how things go. Let us say to the Levy Board, "We give you authority to levy taxation upon private citizens without Parliamentary control up to a maximum of £1¼ million. If you want more, come back and say so". To give wide discretionary powers to such a Board to raise whatever sum it likes from a limited number of Her Majesty's citizens conducting a legitimate business is, in my view, a negation of responsibility


on the part of this Committee and I say that we should refuse to accept it.
I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) bases his case upon a recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee, but I must point out that that Peppiatt recommendation is quite different from his Amendment. The Peppiatt recommendation was that there should be an amount of between £1 million and £1¼ million as the sum to be aimed at in the first year of full operation of the Levy. My hon. Friend's Amendment is to the effect that the total amount, the maximum amount, for any levy period, that is to say, for the rest of the time that the Bill is in operation, shall not exceed £1¼ million.
Mr. McAdden May I invite my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the Peppiatt Report? In paragraph 62, the Committee does not say anything about the figure of £1 million to £1¼ million being the figure to be aimed at. It says in precise terms:
We recommend a levy of £1m.-£1¼m. for the first year of full operation.
On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend said that I should be wise not to press this point, because my figure, the figure which the Peppiatt recommended, might be accepted as a target. One would normally be led to assume that such a target would go down, not up. Therefore, I think I am justified in putting into the Amendment the figure of £1¼ million not as a figure to be aimed at but as the figure specifically recommended by the Peppiatt Committee.

Mr. Renton: I do not wish to cross swords on a false premise with my hon. Friend. He is referring to the conclusions of the Peppiatt Committee which are summarised in paragraph 62. Paragraph 62 refers one back to paragraph 31, which is the one I quoted.
However, the point really is that the Peppiatt Committee's recommendation referred to the first year of operation. My hon. Friend's Amendment would fix a limit for the rest of the time that the Bill was in operation; it would refer to

all future years, unless, of course, the Bill were somehow amended. No provision at all has been made in the Bill as to how large the levy should be. This is left to be agreed between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee, or, if there is a dispute between them, it is to be settled by the three independent members.
The amount of the levy—and the three independent members would have to bear this in mind—would depend in any year upon three factors: first, the needs of horse racing; second, the capacity of the bookmakers to pay; third, the need to balance the amounts taken from the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board and to do so in an equitable manner. Those are not matters which can be determined in advance in such a way as to say that any particular sum should necessarily be the maximum.
These factors depend not only on the needs of racing but on such things as the number of registered bookmakers, and that cannot be known till we have the list from the licensing authorities which we hope to have next May; it also depends on the individual capacities of bookmakers to pay, as advised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and that cannot be known till the first declarations under the Bill are made.
To set out an irrevocable limit for the rest of time would, I suggest, be most unwise in a Bill of this character. We want this Bill to stand the test of time and not to break down, because of some restrictive provision in it, after the first year or two or even the first few years. I feel obliged, if only for the sake of the record, to emphasise the point which I made on Second Reading and to which my hon. Friend has referred again today, that if a ceiling to the levy is written into the Bill there is a serious danger that it could become a target rather than a maximum and that if that happened the effect would be not to protect bookmakers but to preserve the levy payment at an artificially high or, one may almost say in view of future possibilities, even an unnecessarily slightly low figure.

Mr. McAdden: My hon. and learned Friend knows that I hesitate to interrupt and I do so with great apologies, but let me say this. He is noted for being one learned in the law and trained in logic.


How on earth can he reconcile his argument that it is wrong to suggest a maximum figure because it might possibly become a target, with his argument that the figure might become much less? If his argument is that we should place no limit because it is likely to be reduced, surely there is no harm in putting in a maximum figure, especially as that has been recommended by an independent body?

Mr. Renton: I quite appreciate the motives which my hon. Friend has for putting in a maximum figure, but at the same time, for the reasons I am giving to the Committee, I do not think it would be a wise thing to do. He has chosen a maximum figure which even the Peppiatt Committee considered would be a probable maximum only for the first year. That Committee may have been wrong in thinking that £1¼ million was the right amount as the maximum for the first year, or it may have been right; it may have overestimated it, it may have under-estimated it. For the reasons I have given, nobody can say at this stage.
We feel that it would be very much better to name no particular figure in the Bill. Whatever figure we name, whether it is too high or too low, is bound to be misconstrued in one way or another. It is far better to leave the matter flexible. After all, it will be for the representatives of the industry, subject to the arbitration of the independent members, to work this matter out for themselves.
My hon. Friend is entitled to consider whether there is any kind of safeguard to ensure that the bookmakers are not asked to pay an excessive amount, and we say that there is a safeguard, because in the first place subsections (4) and (5) of this Clause provide that the Bookmakers' Committee shall have the initiative in proposing the first draft of the levy scheme, and the Committee is, therefore, in a very strong position. The Levy Board itself has no initiative to consider any other scheme. It must wait till the Bookmakers' Committee puts a scheme before it. That, as I say, is a safeguard. The second safeguard is that, in the event of disagreement, the racing interests, the representatives of the beneficiaries in the broadest sense as we discussed them earlier, cannot override

the views of the bookmakers, because if there is a dispute it will have to be decided by the independent members. So there are safeguards, and those independent members will have enjoined upon them, by the Amendment moved earlier by my right hon. Friend, to act in an impartial manner.
8.15 p.m.
For these reasons, and in the kindest way possible, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would do well not to press this Amendment. We have given the matter very great thought. Naturally, we gave it thought in the preparation of the Bill, in view of what the Peppiatt Committee said about the possible results of the first year of the levy, and we have given it still further thought since Second Reading and as a result of my hon. Friend's putting down this Amendment, but with the best will in the world we do not think that it would be an advisable thing to do in any sense at all.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) is satisfied with the reply which he has just heard from the Under-Secretary of State, but I certainly am not. I did not intervene after the hon. Member for Southend, East had spoken because I personally do not support the Amendment as it stands, but, in view of the observations we have just heard from the Government, I think that the Committee must look once more at what is being proposed in this part of the Bill. I think it is most unsatisfactory that as the Bill is at present there should be no limit at all on the amount which the Levy Board may raise.
It was recognised on Second Reacting that the Bill is a departure from the recognised and well-established methods by which money is raised in this country through ordinary Budgetary channels, but then it was said that there were precedents for it and paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report was quoted in support of the observation that there were precedents for raising money in this totally unorthodox way. Attention was drawn to that paragraph 22 and the fact that we have a levy on cinema takings for the benefit of British film production, the sugar surcharge mechanism, the levy in the cotton industry, and the two levy payments under agricultural marketing schemes.
I think I am right in saying that in none of those cases is there power for any non-Parliamentary body to raise money without limit. That, however, is what is being proposed in the Bill. I have always taken the view that if the Government seek to do something which is unorthodox and contrary to recognised principles which permit of the ordinary machinery of democratic control, it must be justified.
The Under-Secretary of State said the hon. Member's motives were not questioned. I am not interested in his motives, as to whether he wants to protect bookmakers or not. The Under-Secretary of State said that he recognised the motives of the hon. Member, but I am not concerned with motives. I am concerned only with the purity of Parliamentary control over legislation introduced into Parliament by the Government, and it offends me that in this Bill power should be given to a non-Parliamentary body to raise money from the taxpayers without limit. Although this Amendment may not be the right Amendment to cure that defect in the Bill it does touch the heart of the problem.
I do not know whether £1¼ million is right. Therefore, I am not very interested in the Under-Secretary of State's purely technical arguments upon the Amendment precisely as it is proposed by the hon. Member. I should have thought that it would have been more rational to have fixed an upper limit and if, for example, the hon. Member for Southend, East had said that the limit should be £3 million I should have wanted to support it. I do not accept that if we have a maximum in the Bill it necessarily becomes a minimum or a target or something else. I should have hoped that members of the Levy Board could have been given credit for having more intelligence than to adopt that view.
As it is, they are given a completely free hand, and I think that is objectionable, and I hope, whatever the fate of the Amendment may be, that as a result of this discussion upon it the Government will take note of the considerable objections which have been raised on Second

Reading and in the Committee to the absence from the Bill of any maximum figure.

Mr. E. Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), in bringing forward the Peppiatt Report to support his argument, seems to have overlooked paragraph 55, which says:
The requirements of the horse racing industry will change as will bookmakers' capacity to pay and … the Levy Board should accordingly review these factors yearly. …
He would prevent that from taking place by inserting a figure which must not be exceeded in any levy period. He says that the Levy Board may review the bookmakers' capacity to pay on the assumption that it will never exceed £¼ million.

Mr. McAdden: I tried to make this point—and I believe that my hon. Friend was present—on Second Reading, but I only hinted at it today because I do not like repeating my Second Reading speeches. If the industry gets this injection of a supply of funds to help build up amenities, the need for these funds will decrease in the future, and that is why there should be a maximum fixed beyond which the Board should not go because it will not need so much in future.

Mr. Johnson: I have never been able to accept the suggestion that £¼ million is the maximum the industry is ever likely to need when we reflect, for instance, on the cost of building the stand at Ascot. The stand at Liverpool might also very well be rebuilt, and, indeed, practically every stand in the country. There is a great demand for a vast expenditure of money. I do not think that my hon. Friend would seriously suggest that this is all that bookmakers are capable of paying. With all respect to the Peppiatt Committee, I have never accepted that for a moment. I base my argument for not accepting it not on assumptions or inquiries that the Committee has made but on essential facts.
What is happening in Ireland? If our bookmakers think they are to be hardly used by paying this levy, they should reflect on the fact that if they were in


Ireland—taking the Peppiatt Committee's figures on turnover as accurate—on-the-course bookmakers would be contributing £1¼ million to the Racing Board for on-the-course betting only, but on top of that would be contributing £15 million to the Exchequer. On that basis, in Ireland, with a turnover of only about ¤14 million, they contribute over £1 million to racing.
If an upper limit is to be fixed I suggest that something like £16¼ million might be reasonably accepted. To say that £1¼ million should be the limit is quite absurd, and I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I cannot vote for this Amendment. I have admired the way in which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has fought the battle for the cause he upholds, but I do not think that he can expect much support.
We do not know how many bookmakers there will be. That is the first thing. I saw in a Midlands newspaper the other day an estimate of the number of bookmakers' offices there are to be in Birmingham. I am beginning to wonder whether any other industry but bookmaking will be carried on in Birmingham if that prophecy is fulfilled. I understand that it was based on the applications that have been received. I read yesterday that in Manchester planning permission has been asked for 111 such offices.

Mr. E. Johnson: I had a deputation from bookmakers, and there are about 1,000 of them in Manchester.

Mr. Ede: I always believe in understating a case. I was giving a figure which I had seen. These may be the people who got caught up in the problem which those of us who served on the Betting and Gaming Bill Committee know very well—the interests of the town planning authorities in this matter. There may be many people applying for licences who will find that town planning requirements will not allow them to get the licences. At any rate, figures are now being given about the possible number of bookmakers which, I think, go far beyond anything that we anticipated when we were considering the Betting and Gaming Bill last year.
Neither do we know what the programme of the Levy Board will be in the contribution it is to make. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) indicated that considerable sums are required to bring grandstands and minor stands up to a reasonable standard of comfort. I was discussing the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) the very considerable scheme, of which I am aware from contemplation, at Epsom. I do not think we should assume that at the end of, say, two years, we shall know what the number of bookmakers is, what the needs of the various beneficiaries—as they are called by this Bill—will be, what sum will be available, and what the requirements will be.
After all, the bookmakers, as the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, have the initiative in this matter. They will prepare the scheme. By the time they come to that, some of the statistical matters I have alluded to may be available. They might find that the forecasts made by the Peppiatt Committee, both about income and needs, have not been justified by the facts that then confront them. I am not concerned now with the fact that we are preceding on non-orthodox lines. I am not orthodox, and I welcome any opportunity to see whether orthodoxy cannot be proved to be wrong.
I hope that the Committee will leave the Clause in this particular as it stands, because it will leave the Bookmakers' Committee when it meets completely free to face the facts of the situation which then will have been revealed, and it will leave the Levy Board in any negotiations free to deal with any situation that might by that time have arisen. I very much doubt whether even as well-informed an individual as the hon. Member for Southend would like to make a firm guess about the number of bookmakers that will be revealed and the amount of business they will do when bookmaking has been made respectable by operating under the Betting and Gaming Act.
We have no definite answer at the moment to any of these problems. I hope that we shall leave the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board with the freedom the Bill as drafted gives them, because I am certain that any attempt to forecast the amount of money that will


be at the disposal of those who will then have to consider the matter is completely futile at present.

Mr. McAdden: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has invited me to make a firm guess about some things. One firm guess that I can make is that the Amendment is not likely to be carried. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that he must not confuse what we are discussing on the Amendment, which is taxation without Parliamentary control, with sums of money raised in Eire which are legislated for and controlled by the Dail. I hope that by withdrawing the Amendment now I shall not prejudice my chance to put a suitable figure forward when we come to the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:
(b) for securing that the levy shall not be payable by a bookmaker who carries on business as a bookmaker only on a racecourse.
This Amendment also is in accordance with the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am still hoping that some of these recommendations of the Committee, which was set up to advise and has spent a great deal of time on advising my right hon. Friend on this matter, will be accepted. Here is one for a start. The Committee recommended that the on-course bookmaker who conducts his business purely on-course, by reason of the fact that he already contributes to racing by the considerable fee that he has to pay to practise his trade on the racecourse, should not be subject to the levy as well.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Only as part of what he would have to pay for entering, I think it was suggested.

Mr. McAdden: In paragraph 44 the Committee seems to recommend that the bookmaker should be excluded from paying a further levy at all. At any rate, I hope that when my right hon. Friend has looked at the Amendment he will recognise that these people have been contributing to racing for a long while and that, in the circumstances, they

might be excluded from further contributions as long as their business is purely on-course.

Mr. Vosper: We had better get this straight. What the Peppiatt Committee recommended in paragraph 44 was, first, in respect of bookmakers practising both on and off-course that half their on-course practice might be taken into account in the Peppiatt levy, but it went on—and this is relevant to the Amendment—to deal with those who practised only on the course, which the Report said numbered only about one thousand. It is not true to say that the Committee made this as a positive recommendation. At the conclusion of paragraph 44 the Committee said:
It might be better, therefore, to exclude these small bookmakers from the scheme in order to avoid unnecessary administrative costs.
The Committee says "It might be". This is not like the former point that the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. McAdden) made, which was a definite recommendation.
We have not followed this suggestion, because the whole of the proposals in the scheme are less rigid than is envisaged by the Peppiatt Committee. In many respeots more discretion and responsibility to the Bookmakers' Committee is given under the Bill than was suggested in the Report. There are several occasions where this happens and we have not sought at this stage to tie the bookmakers' hands firmly. Whether they wish to follow Peppiatt is a matter entirely for themselves, and if they wish to exclude small bookmakers who practise on-course I cannot think that the Levy Board would wish to disagree with them.
Whether the charge which the bookmaker on-course pays is a contribution to racing or a payment for facilities, the Committee might think that the small on-course bookmaker should contribute to racing. It also may be that charges for racing may be reduced and also that the contribution which the small on-course bookmaker pays will be less than it is today. The Bookmakers' Committee may then think that he should make the contribution by levy.
It does not seem, therefore, in the interest of bookmakers themselves to tie their hands at this stage and to say that


in no circumstances for ever more shall on-course bookmakers make a contribution. If the Bookmakers' Committee in recommending its scheme to the Levy Board decides to exclude them, I am certain that the Board would wish to endorse that, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East should press this Amendment at the moment and tie the Bookmakers' Committee to something which years hence it might regret.
Although I appreciate his interest, I should like him to reconsider his position and not press the Amendment but allow the Bookmakers' Committee the wider discretion it has under the Bill.

Mr. McAdden: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert:
according to the profits of their business.
The Committee will remember that the Peppiatt Committee considered a number of alternative methods by which the bookmakers might be divided into different categories. The Bill is completely silent about the directions that are to be given to the Levy Board as to how these categories should be fixed. It is unsatisfactory to draft a Bill in this way, merely giving directions that bookmakers should be divided into different categories. Surely there must be some principle on which the Levy Board should act, otherwise it could divide bookmakers into all kinds of different categories. It could, for example, divide them alphabetically. It could divide them geographically. Any such classification would be ridiculous.
It has always been assumed that they should be divided into categories according to the size of their business. Clearly bookmakers have to be divided into categories according to some principle, and the obvious principle to select is the size of their respective businesses. That is to ensure that justice is done as between the large bookmakers, the medium-sized bookmakers and the small bookmakers. Unless one is careful, even then there may be injustice.
There are various methods by which one could assess the size of a bookmaker's business. For example, the

Peppiatt Committee drew attention to four or five different criteria which might be selected. It said that one could categorise bookmakers according to the number of telephones they used, or according to the rateable value of the premises they occupied, or according to their turnover, or the number of their employees. Finally, it suggested that perhaps the most suitable method to adopt would be a categorisation—I apologise for that rather uncouth word—based on profits.
It seems to me that it is desirable that, as far as possible, effect should be given to the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) will agree with me in that observation, and it seems to us that, to ensure that as far as possible justice is done in this rather new field on which we are embarking, we should provide in the Bill that bookmakers should be divided into categories in accordance with the profits of their respective businesses.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment, because it is far better to leave this to the bookmakers. They are intelligent men. They are used to dealing with figures, and they obviously have a common interest in seeing that the scheme that is produced is equitable and is one that will not involve vast administrative costs.
If one talks to bookmakers, one finds that the bulk of them come down on the side of some simple device of dividing them into categories by the number of telephones, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the number of employees, and the like.
Although the Peppiatt Committee recommended profits, I think it is perhaps necessary to bear in mind that there are very few bookmakers who, if driven to it, could not show that they had no profits at all. There is the business of laying off, and it is possible to ensure that the accounts are presented in the most favourable light. In any case, the Government have chosen to leave it to the Bookmakers' Committee to work out the basis upon which the division shall take place, and I think that that is wise, bearing in mind that the bookmakers are keen on having some


simple, recognisable and checkable device. That is the trouble about profits. They will not be easy to check, whereas the number of telephones or the number of employees is very easy, and on current form it makes a very considerable appeal. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Mr. David Griffiths: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should say that bookmakers are used to figures. They are, and they are also used to handling money. They can do it very intelligently. My hon. Friend says that his suggestion is a simple device, but there is no such thing as a simple device for dealing with this matter. In the part of the world that I come from we call the practice to which he referred "edging". If I were a commission agent and I had a £500 bet struck with me and I fancied that I had insufficient money to stand losing the bet, I would get on the telephone and put £100 on the same horse with A, B, C and D. We cannot say that such a man ought to be taxed on £500 when he has not had £500 worth of business.
My hon. Friend says that bookmakers are quite competent to deal with this problem. I have had a little experience of them, and I know that they are an honest set of people. In fact, they are so honest, like many other people—including Members of Parliament—that they cannot trust each other. We cannot deal with this problem in a more equitable or favourable way than by making use of the profit motive.

Mr. Vosper: My colleagues and I are probably at fault for not making it sufficiently clear that the outline of the Bill is definitely less rigid than were the

Peppiatt proposals. The last Amendment illustrated that point. Here again, we are not asking the authorities to be set up under the Bill to tie themselves to one form of approach. Although the Peppiatt Committee, having considered the various forms under which the Levy could be made, came down in favour of the profits approach, at this stage—and we are looking some years ahead—we feel that it would be inadvisable for the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee to tie themselves irrevocably to that approach.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) that the profits approach commends itself as being apparently the most suitable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has on many occasions advocated alternatives, and anyone who reads Sporting Life knows that there are many variations of the profits approach. Although I am sure that in the initial proceedings the Bookmakers' Committee is likely to recommend to the Levy Board that the Levy should be based on profits, after a year's experience it may find it possible to pursue an alternative approach, and my right hon. Friend does not wish to prevent the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board, during the course of the years, from trying an alternative if they believe one is available. For that reason we have made the scheme in the Bill more flexible than were the Peppiatt recommendations. On the whale, the Committee would be wise to allow the Bookmakers' Committee to have this power to adopt an alternative approach if it wishes.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 190.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fitch, Alan


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, George
Fletcher, Eric


Awbery, Stan
Cliffe, Michael
Forman, J. C.


Beaney, Alan
Collick, Percy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Benson, Sir George
Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
George, Lady Megan Lloyd


Blyton, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Boyden, James
Deer, George
Gourlay, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, John
Grey, Charles


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Dodds, Norman
Griffiths, David (Rother valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Callaghan, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)




Hannan, William
McInnes, James
Rankin, John


Hayman, F. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reynolds, G. W.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
McLeavy, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Holman, Percy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Houghton, Douglas
Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Marsh, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hunter, A. E.
Mason, Roy
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mendelson, J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Millan, Bruce
Soronsen, R. W.


Janner, Barnett
Milne, Edward J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Monslow, Walter
Steele, Thomas


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Morris, John
Stones, William


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Warbey, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oram, A. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Kelley, Richard
Padley, W. E.
Witkins, W. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Frederick


Lawson, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ledger, Ron
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCann, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Aitken, W. T.
Farr, John
Lilley, F. J. p.


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Atkins Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longbottom, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.


Batsford, Brian
Gardner, Edward
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Berkeley, Humphry
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McAdden, Stephen


Bidgood, John C.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bingham, R. M.
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Clive
Goodhew, victor
Maitland, Sir John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Box, Donald
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)


Brewis, John
Gurden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclcsf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Channon, H. P. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hendry, Forbes
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Partridge, E.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cole, Norman
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John


Collard, Richard
Hooking, Philip N.
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F V.
Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Coulson, J. M.
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hopkins, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Quenneil, Miss J. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dance, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Hugh


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Duncan, Sir James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Ronald


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kitson, Timothy
Seymour, Leslie


Errington, Sir Eric
Leather, E. H. C.
Shaw, M.







Shepherd, William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Turner, Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stodart, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Woollam, John


Talbot, John E.
Wade, Donald
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Webster, David
Mr. Noble.


Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mr. D. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "declaration", to insert "under oath".
I move this Amendment not without an element of timidity because I realise the difficulty confronting this huge industry and I realise that it will have a lot of teething troubles in dealing with this problem. Ultimately, I think, it will sort itself out and the provision will be helpful to the industry. I have no objection to that and give it my wholehearted support. On the other hand, there are some things which cannot be left entirely to bookmakers to deal with in a haphazard manner. We have to attempt to create and maintain a degree of honesty in these matters. I am not suggesting for a moment that bookmakers, any more than any other section of the general public, are dishonest, but we want to maintain that degree of honesty. For that reason, I think that these declarations ought to be made under oath.

Mr. Renton: I rather doubt whether the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) would have moved his Amendment if he had realised the dire consequences that it might bring upon bookmakers by doing so. Adding the words "under oath" would attract the provisions of Section 2 of the Perjury Act, 1911, so that if the declaration under oath happened to be a false one, it would attract a maximum sentence of not less than seven years' imprisonment. I feel that that would be a most swingeing penalty even for making a false declaration.
It may be of some interest and consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that the terms of the Bill as they stand attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Perjury Act, so that if a false declaration is made, the maximum penalty would be two years' imprisonment, which we feel is quite enough. For this reason, I would

advise the Committee not to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that the Government are prepared to allow this element of dishonesty and are making the punishment less rigid, only two years instead of seven? What is the difference? Surely it is only five years, and what is five years? It is not much in the span of one's life, particularly from the age of 15 to 20, but it is from 65 to 70. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman quite seriously that regardless of the implications which he may have indicated concerning the Perjury Act, all we are attempting to do here is to retain that element of honesty.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McAdden: I beg to move in page 4, line 23, to leave out "Levy Board" and to insert:
three persons for the time being appointed to be members of the Board by the Secretary of State (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'the independent members').

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments:
In page 4, line 29, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".
In line 32, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".
In line 35, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".
In line 38, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".
In line 39, leave out from "committee" to "shall" in line 40 and insert "they".

Mr. McAdden: That is an anticipation of what I would have suggested myself, but you, Sir Gordon, have put it much more clearly than I could have


done. It would certainly be convenient to the Committee if we could take this series of Amendments together.
The object is that if the Bookmakers' Committee prepares a scheme, that scheme should be considered by the chairman and the independent members of the Committee, rather than those with the begging bowls who are waiting to receive some benefit from the fund when it is collected. It is suggested in these Amendments that the right thing to do is to enable the independent members to express their opinion upon the scheme prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, rather than have the other members brought in at that stage, especially the recipient members, the two members of the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee and so on, who are all possible recipients under the scheme.
It may come as a surprise to many people to realise that the Jockey Club itself could be a recipient, but hon. Members on this side of the Committee who are familiar with the activities of the Jockey Club will know that it is, for instance, the owner of the racecourse at Newmarket. If there were the possibility of improved facilities at Newmarket, the Jockey Club would be a recipient of sums which might be raised. In these circumstances, it is desirable, and is in accordance with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend on a previous Amendment on recommendations made by the Bookmakers' Committee, that consideration should be confined to the independent members of the Levy Board. Again I am fortified, as I am so often, by the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), and I should like to quote what he said on Second Reading. My hon. Friend is a distinguished Member of the House and also a member of the Jockey Club and he therefore speaks with authority on this subject. My hon. Friend said,
If the Bookmakers' Committee cannot make up its mind how to get the levy and therefore it is to be done by the chairman and the Home Secretary's two nominees, it is equally right that representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should not take part in that, because if they did they would be saying how much money they wanted. It is their duty to consider

how the money should be distributed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 916.]
I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support, in view of the fact that he adds such weight throughout our proceedings in so many ways. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) suggests that the levy scheme for assessing and collecting the levy from the bookmakers should, when prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, be submitted direct to the independent members of the Levy Board, thus by-passing the two members of the Jockey Club and the members of the National Hunt Committee. We do not think that that would be quite right. We feel that the members of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee may have useful suggestions to make in connection with the scheme for the collection of the levy, just as the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee may have useful suggestions to make on the distribution scheme as to how the money is to be spent.
As I explained earlier, there are three distinct elements on the Levy Board, but it is one board, and until it comes to a dispute we feel that all the members of the board should have the right to express their views upon any matter which arises. My hon. Friend has nothing to fear, because it is abundantly plain from the terms of the Bill that in the event of a dispute it will not be the turf representatives but the independent members who will arbitrate in that dispute.
Having given that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend and those for whom he justifiably speaks feel that no great jurpose would be served in by-passing the turf representatives, as the Amendment would.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 34, and to insert
if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

The Chairman: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 5, line 11, to leave out from "shall" to the end of the Clause and to add:
if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

Mr. Gordon Walker: We attach considerable importance to this Amendment, which seeks to import an element of Parliamentary control over taxation. Indeed, we attach much more importance to the need for Parliamentary control here than in the earlier Amendment which we discussed about Parliamentary control over the expenditure of the Levy Board.
As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is no longer in the Committee, said on an earlier Amendment, this is a tax which we are allowing to be levied in our name by the Bill. It is compulsory. It is a statutory levy. It could not be raised but for a Statute of the Realm. By virtue of the Bill it will be enforceable by law, certainly by civil process.
This is a compulsory charge laid upon bookmakers by Act of Parliament and enforceable by the law of the land. From an individual bookmaker's point of view, there is no question but that this is a tax laid upon him by Parliament. Bookmakers have just as many rights in these matters as any other citizen or class of citizens. In my view, it is wrong that where Parliament is, in effect, imposing a tax, it should part with any control over that tax. This is a very extraordinary tax power which we are conferring upon the Levy Board. It can discriminate between bookmaker and bookmaker. By drawing its categories differently it can vary its discrimination from year to year. It can, therefore, have a very great effect upon the incidence of this tax upon one bookmaker, or class of bookmakers, and another.
Further, there is absolutely no limit to the amount of levy which can be raised. We, therefore, find that we are conferring upon a Board set up by Parliament the right, on the face of it, to levy any amount it likes, to vary this from year to year and to discriminate from year to year as between one bookmaker and another, one taxpayer and another. That is very gravely wrong in the light

of all the principles in which we believe. We should not allow any body to have these great powers of taxation, with no residue of Parliamentary control whatsoever over its exercise of these taxing powers.
Even if there are precedents for this, as the Peppiatt Committee alleged, I very much doubt if these precedents are really relevant. They relate to different sorts of bodies from the one set up under the Bill. Even if a relevant precedent can be found I would still say that it was a bad precedent and should not be followed. The mere fact that Parliament, in its unwisdom, may have done one bad thing is no reason why it should do another. If there is a precedent for this I would rather get rid of it: I do not want to follow it. It does not seem to me that the argument of there having been a precedent—even if a relevant one can be found, which I doubt—is an argument that could be prayed in aid by anyone who believes in the principles on which our legislation in these matters is based.
The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag on Second Reading when he told us that the reason he was doing all this was that he wanted to get rid of responsibility himself. He did not want the responsibility of having to decide all these things. Of course, in getting rid of his responsibility he got rid of our responsibility and our rights, too. We cannot get any residual right of control unless a Secretary of State will exercise it himself.
The purpose of our Amendment is twofold. First, it is to make sure that the Secretary of State himself shall exercise a proper control over these taxing powers and, secondly, that he shall then be answerable to us. Once again, we are not asking for regular, sustained, continuous debates year after year. We are asking for the right of Parliament in a matter of taxation to assert its rights if it should so wish. Whatever people may feel about the details of Bills, the clash of interests and so forth, this is a matter of profound principle on which I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of this Committee will be united.

Major Sir Frank Markham: The speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was very brief, and mine will


be brief, too. His speech was to the point, and I hope that mine will be, too. But surely the right hon. Gentleman has ignored a point of considerable importance—I do not say that he has done so deliberately, but he has ignored all the precedents quoted in the Peppiatt Report, and, above all, the most signal thing Parliament has ever done, and that is passing over the rights of levy or taxation to a host of local government bodies, port authorities, and so on. There is not only full precedent for the line being taken here, but adequate, warranted and workable precedent.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Peppiatt Committee did not claim that there were any true precedents. It is clear from a careful reading of the Report that there were things which were more or less like this, but they were not true precedents. All local authorities are under some form of public control and are answerable to the public. The Levy Board would not be in any way answerable to the public.

Mr. Renton: There are, broadly, two arguments in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the nature of the levy scheme is that it is a matter for the industry itself. As has been said so often, this is an opportunity for the industry to help itself. The second argument is that the proposal to make the levy scheme subject to approval through Statutory Instrument procedure is just not workable.
I will develop both themes. The concept of the Peppiatt Report was that the scheme was domestic to the racing industry. We felt that it was both unsuitable and undesirable that a Minister or either House of Parliament should become involved. The Peppiatt Report envisaged that the collecting scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. Instead of following that advice, we have made provision for arbitration by the three independent members of the Levy Board.
I will explain why the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be quite impracticable and would cause delay. The scheme will have to be drawn up by people with detailed knowledge of betting and the manner in which bookmakers work and make their living. Account will have to be taken of the matters set out in Clause 3 (6).

If there is a dispute, but only if there is a dispute, the independent members will have to balance the needs of racing and the capacity of bookmakers and the Totalisator Board to pay. When they are arbitrating, the independent members will have the advantage of having participated in the investigation by the Levy Board of the needs of racing, and they will have discussed with the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee the detailed problems of bookmakers.
Therefore, the independent members will have an intimate knowledge of the problems involved. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor the House of Commons would have those advantages. My right hon. Friend would not have independent sources of expert information on which to call. If the Secretary of State were required to approve a scheme for assessment and collection of the levy, particularly when there had been disagreement, he would in effect be made into an appellate authority, but the difficulty is that he would not have the detailed knowledge of the machinery for exercising the function of an appellate authority.
If there is to be arbitration by the three independent members, which we say is correct, it would be superfluous to require the Secretary of State to draft a Statutory Instrument, approve the scheme in that manner, and lay it before the House as well. If we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's procedure, we should entirely scrap the system of arbitration by the independent members. We do not think that it would be right to do that.
If we kept both procedures, the Secretary of State would either be a mere rubber stamp for the decision of the independent members or he would have to do their work afresh without the advantages of the full information which they would have.
9.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned precedents. There are, of course, other levy schemes but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, none is subject to yearly approval by Parliament. In the case of each of them a framework scheme has been approved by Parliament, just as we have put the framework of the scheme into this Bill. It has generally been done by affirmative Resolution but, once that has been done, the


statutory authorities have been left to determine the details themselves, and to make annual adjustments. That is what we have done in this Bill.
Quite candidly, I am not sure that it is useful to follow all the precedents in detail. If we did, we might find some precedents among the nationalised boards that would not be entirely welcome to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This is, as we have accepted, an unusual scheme. It breaks entirely fresh ground, and surely it is right that we should draft into the Bill a scheme that appears best to fit the particular circumstances of this industry.
I think that one can summarise the issue between the official Opposition and the Government on this Amendment by saying that the broad choice lies between trying to treat the levy scheme as something strictly domestic to the industry—subject to independent arbitration in the event of dispute—and full Parliamentary control, which would mean that the levy would be regarded as a tax raised by the State, the needs of the industry being met by a voted subsidy.
Fundamentally, that is the broad choice lying before the Committee, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal goes to either of those things. What he has suggested is a hybrid between those two broad alternatives that are at our disposal. A hybrid or compromise is sometimes workable, but I do not think that it would be in this case. Without labouring the matter, I should also point to the dangers of delay, because there would undoubtedly be delay.
One could enter into all sorts of discussions as to what the nature of the Statutory Instrument would be like, and whether hon. Members, who do not possess the expert knowledge of the bookmaking business that the Bookmakers' Committee will have, and which the independent members will learn, could deal adequately with special arrangements designed to meet the special circumstances of the bookmaking business. It is hard to envisage how the terms of the Statutory Instrument would be worked out.
We also have to face the possibility that if hon. Gentlemen did not understand

something and demanded that it should be clarified we should get even longer delay. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to understand that we fully appreciate the importance of this matter. The Home Secretary has been into it very closely indeed, but, for the reasons I have given, we do not think that this provision would be appropriate—or, indeed, practical.

Mr. McInnes: Apart from the question of Parliamentary control raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I am disturbed by the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He recognises—he has indicated—that a very important factor here is the Bookmakers' Committee. We do not know and I do not suppose that we ever shall know the way in which that Committee will be constituted. According to the Bill, that is a matter for the Home Secretary. We do not even know how many bookmakers will be appointed.
Here I want to make a number of references to the provisions of the First Schedule. According to that Schedule not a single bookmaker need be on the Bookmakers' Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman, replying to my right hon. Friend, talked of the expert knowledge of the Bookmakers' Committee. What expert knowledge will its members possess? Who will they be? There is no assurance that even one bookmaker shall serve on this committee. This is very important because, as the Peppiatt Committee indicated, bookmakers are the people who are best suited for the purposes for which the Levy Board is to be established. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with that point because it is vital to this discussion, quite apart from the important point of Parliamentary control.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not want to traverse the whole of our case again, but the Joint Under-Secretary used one argument which is somewhat dangerous doctrine, namely, that if there is a little delay this is an argument against Parliamentary control of taxation and expenditure. This is surely a dangerous suggestion. We have always realised that Parliamentary control of taxation involves delay in the business of the


Government and we have all been prepared to pay that price.
I hope that on consideration the hon. and learned Gentleman will not use this argument of delay against the rights of Parliament to control taxation. We on these benches feel very strongly on this point, and we feel that we must divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I should just like to point out that I used that argument in the particular context of what we were discussing. I certainly would not have pressed it as a general argument.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 129.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[9.22 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Aitken, W. T.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdaie)


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Partridge, E.


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barter, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bidgood, John C.
Hastings, Stephen
Pott, percivall


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bossom, Clive
Hendry, Forbes
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Box, Donald
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rees, Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Renton, David


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricla
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Seymour, Leslle


Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shepherd, William


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Collard, Richard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Coulson, J. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. s.
Stodart, J. A.


Critchley, Julian
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Deedes, W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longden, Gilbert
Turner, Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wade, Donald


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Farey-Jones. F. W.
Maltland, Sir John
Webster, David


Farr, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Finlay, Graeme
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wigg, George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morrison, John
Woollam, John


Godber, J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar



Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Mr. Bryan and




Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Blackburn, F.


Allen, scholefield (Crewe)
Beaney, Alan
Blyton, William


Awbery, Stan
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)




Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, A. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, w. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Peart, Frederick


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Janner, Barnett
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Chetwynd, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Collick, Percy
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Randall, Harry


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Sketfington, Arthur


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Fitch, Alan
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swain, Thomas


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mackie, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ginsburg, David
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marsh, Richard
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mason, Roy
Willey, Frederick


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Milne, Edward J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayrhan, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Morris, John



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moyle, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold
Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(ASSESSMENT OF OR EXEMPTION FROM BOOKMAKERS' LEVY.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Fletcher. The Amendment to page 5, line 29.

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order, Sir William. I did take the precaution of checking with the learned Clerk at the Table about my three Amendments, in page 5, line 20, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 21 in line 22, leave out "for" and insert "shall state"; and in line 26, leave out from "may" to "scrutinise" in line 28. I understood that they were to be taken together. I should like an opportunity to move them.

The Deputy-Chairman: I had thought that they were considered on Clause 1. That was my understanding.

Mr. McAdden: With respect, Sir William, they raise rather different points from those raised in the Amendments moved to Clause 1, and I took the precaution of making sure that this was so. May I move them very briefly?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I could not allow that, but the hon.

Member will have an opportunity on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not propose to move the Amendment we have down to page 5, line 29.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, at the end to insert "and rejected".
I move the Amendment because it seems necessary that we should clear up some ambiguities in this subsection. This subsection uses some very odd language. I am sure the Home Secretary was not responsible for it. It would introduce into our Statute Book what I think is a new word to it—"scrutinise". I cannot recollect having seen that word in an Act of Parliament. I hope that the Home Secretary or one of his assistants will tell us what it is intended to mean.
As I understand the concept of the Clause, it is that first of all the bookmaker should make a declaration, either under oath or not as the Committee may decide, and then if the Bookmakers' Committee is not satisfied with the declaration it should scrutinise it. I


assume that that means that that Committee will look at it and examine it. Then it is proposed that in the case of any bookmaker whose declaration has been scrutinised certain things happen. Contrary to what one might have thought, one finds that it is provided that in every such case the bookmaker in question is then assessed in some different way.
There does not seem to be any provision as to what is to happen if a bookmaker makes a declaration, has if scrutinised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and then finds that that Committee is satisfied with it. It looks to me as though the draftsman of this Clause has meant to provide that the Clause should operate only adversely to a bookmaker after his declaration has been scrutinised and if, for some reason or another, it is rejected by the Bookmakers' Committee.
There must, of course, be cases in which the Bookmakers' Committee will be suspicious about a declaration, but, having examined it, and, presumably, having taken such other steps as are open to it, will then be satisfied with it. But it will still have to scrutinise it. Something is necessary in the drafting of this subsection to make it intelligible.

Mr. Renton: This is a matter more of drafting than of substance. Perhaps the extreme economy of words used by the draftsman may justify the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, but at any rate I undertake to consider the matter and will get in touch with him between now and Report stage, if he will, meanwhile, withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: On that satisfactory assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, at end to insert:
If a bookmaker is of opinion that he has been put in the wrong category, the Bookmakers' Committee shall be required to tell him in writing the reasons for their decision".
The object of this Amendment is to try to overcome the difficulty about the onus of proof, as I see it. As the Bill stands, it appears that the onus, if a bookmaker feels that he has been put in the wrong category, lies with the bookmaker

himself to prove that he is innocent and to prove his own case that the category in which he said he belonged was the right one.
I tried to find a way in which the onus of proof could be changed to the Bookmakers' Committee, so that it would have to prove the case, rather than the bookmaker having to prove it himself. I did not find that that was possible, so I thought that the simplest way of trying to shift the onus was to put down an Amendment in these terms. It would mean that the Bookmakers' Committee, if it felt that the bookmaker had said that he was in a category to which he did not belong, would then have to give its reasons in writing, and would not then be able to depart from those reasons, and the bookmaker would have something to shoot at in trying to prove his own case.

Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) but I do not think that the Amendment is acceptable. He perhaps does not understand the procedure which will operate here. The bookmaker will declare the category into which his profits fall, and therefore the initiative, as my hon. Friend suggested, will rest with him.
It is then open to the Bookmakers' Committee to decide, from its general knowledge of that bookmaker, that he should be placed in a higher category, and it will, therefore, re-assess him. It will not do that on any factual knowledge supplied by him in the form of accounts, because they will not be made available to it, and it will not find it possible to justify that reassessment in a letter or an explanation in writing.
My hon. Friend says that that is unfair to the bookmaker who is reassessed into a higher category, but it is open to him to go to an appeals tribunal to state his case. At that stage information in the form of accounts can be made available. To write into the Bill—desirable though it may seem in theory—that he should be given in writing the reasons for his being reassessed into a higher category would not work in practice, because the Bookmakers' Committee would not have available to it factual knowledge by which to make that reply.
The bookmaker may rest upon the appeal to the appeals tribunal, when the facts will be made fully available. I do not think that the words proposed in the Amendment offer any particular safeguard.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has used an extraordinary argument. He is telling us that the Bookmakers' Committee will do things for which it cannot give any reasons in writing because it will not have any reasons it can state. I did not think that under the Bill we were giving people powers to exercise to the detriment of the bookmakers without giving reasons. I think that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) is on a very good point and that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to him is really extraordinary.

Mr. Vosper: I said that the Bookmakers' Committee could re-assess him in the light of its general knowledge of his affairs, but not of detailed accounts, because those would not be available. And because it would not then be possible for the Bookmakers' Committee's re-assessment to be explained in detail, he has a right of appeal to an appeals tribunal, which can require him, if necessary and if he is willing, to produce accounts. That is his safeguard.

Mr. Arbuthnot: One of the difficulties I see the bookmaker in is that he will be re-assessed in a different category on grounds which he does not know, and of which he has not the full details because they are not available to him in writing. It seems to me that this goes against the principles of British law and justice which require that a man is assumed innocent in any proceedings that may take place. In this case the bookmaker is being assumed guilty on the say-so of the Bookmakers' Committee, and that Committee is not required to give its reasons in writing. I find that a little difficult to understand and against the principles of general British law.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "one hundred".
This is the subsection which is designed to protect bookmakers against the improper disclosure by the Bookmakers'

Committee or the Levy Board, or anybody else, of information coming to their knowledge confidentially about his affairs. It will be appreciated that bookmakers, like other members of the community, are sometimes sensitive about their earnings, their profits and the quantity of their business, and they will not be very pleased to make declarations of the kind required by the Bill or to submit those declarations to the Bookmakers' Committee unless they are assured that such communications shall be completely privileged and not subject to improper disclosure to any third party.
The sanction suggested in the Bill is a fine of £50. It seems to us that it would be a very serious thing if bookmakers, having made confidential disclosure of their figures, were then to find that information had been passed on improperly to some third party. We think that there should be a really adequate deterrent to prevent any such disclosure. We therefore propose that the fine should be increased from £50 to £100. Speaking for myself, since I tabled the Amendment I have had some doubts whether we might not have been wiser to have suggested an even higher figure.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the maximum of £100 is not inappropriate to cover the worst type of offence that might arise. I think he can rest assured that it need not be very much higher, because an examination of similar penalties shows that £100 rather than £50 that was originally in the Bill is broadly in line with what we have been carrying into other Statutes for similar offences. For these reasons my advice to the Committee would be to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(RECONSTITUTION OF TOTALISATOR BOARD.)

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, after "state" to insert:
and one of whom at least shall be qualified either in accountancy or law".


In view of the late hour, I shall try to be brief. The Amendment deals with the constitution of the new Totalisator Board, which will be composed of five members. I wish to draw attention to the importance of ensuring that the right members are selected. I have therefore suggested that one at least of them should be either an accountant or a lawyer, because I believe that the task facing the new Board will be a very serious one if it is to take advantage of the new conditions in which it will operate.
I hope also that one or more members of the Board will be drawn from people who have experience of modern totalisator practice, perhaps in other countries as well as in this country.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment, because it is unreasonably restrictive. If a lawyer or an accountant were appointed, he would have a special status in relation to the Board's legal advisers or its accountants. To that extent it seems to be restrictive.
Also, the Amendment seems slightly deficient in logic. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is necessary to have an accountant or a lawyer, why choose one or the other? Why not both? If he has an accountant he is short of a lawyer, and if he has a lawyer he is short of an accountant. What he is seeking to get here he cannot get in one person, so he suggests one or the other. If he thinks one or the other is important, there is a deficiency in the one which is not covered.
The Government, in seeking to have on the Board a representative with an interest in racing or experience in business are on the right lines. In the thirty years during which the Racecourse Betting Control Board has operated it has never found any difficulty in getting competent advice on both legal and accountancy matters, and I would have thought that it would be better to rely on that approach rather than to restrict ourselves to a rather narrow field.

Mr. Vosper: I think that I ought to put my hon. Friend right about the size of the Board. It will consist of a chairman and three members. It is my right hon. Friend's intention that they shall be men of business ability. It would be wrong to fetter my right hon. Friend to

limit him at any rate in one appointment to a lawyer or accountant. It may be that a lawyer or an accountant might fit the bill in some respects, but it is more important that one should have an unfettered discretion to appoint men of business ability to this very small and compact Board.
As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, it will have available the services of lawyers and accountants, and I do not think that it would be wise to insist that one of the members should be from those professions. Having aired his point of view, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 43 and to insert:
(6) Paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section eleven of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960 (which confers on the Totalisator Board like powers to those conferred on the Levy Board by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act) shall cease to have effect; and for paragraph (d) of the said subsection (3) (which confers on the Totalisator Board powers of investment similar to those conferred on the Levy Board by paragraph (d) of the said subsection (1)) there shall be substituted the following, that is to say—
(d) to invest money in any body corporate which is carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of activities authorised by the Board under subsection (1) of this section, to lend money to any body corporate or other person for the purposes of the carrying on of such a business by that body or other person, and to make such other loans or investments as they judge desirable for the proper conduct of their affairs

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think it would also be convenient for the Committee to discuss the Amendment in page 8, line 42, leave out from "other" to end of line 45.

Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir William. Under subsection (6) as drafted the Totalisator Board's power to invest money is limited to trustee securities. That is a departure from the powers given to the Board under the 1928 Act, as amended by the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. There was no such limitation in the previous legislation, and it is right that I should make that clear. The reason why it was


inserted in the Bill is that, under postwar Statutes, a limitation has generally been imposed on the power of public bodies and statutory boards to invest their money by requiring them to conform with the same restrictions as are applied to the trustees of trust funds under the enactments for the time being in force.
The Totalisator Board's powers of investment should be considerably widened if the Trustee Investments Bill, which is now in another place, were to go through Parliament. That is a factor to bear in mind in considering both Amendments. When the Racecourse Betting Control Board received the Bill it represented to us that the limitation to trustee securities might unduly fetter it if, at some future date, it desired to invest money in a concern carrying on business of the same kind as that which the Board is empowered to carry on. It should be remembered that under Section 11 of the 1960 Act the Board has an exclusive right to conduct pool betting on horseracing and betting at tote odds, but it has power to give permission to other people to do this, and it may be that in the future it would want to give such permission to somebody else, and in that way to invest money.
We feel that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), on behalf of the Board, which proposes entirely to omit that part of subsection (6) which imposes the limitation, goes rather too wide. It would permit the Board to make any kind of investment and would give much wider powers of investment even than those of the Levy Board. But it seems reasonable that the Board should have discretion to invest money in any business which is wholly or mainly engaged in the same kind of operation as that of the Totalisator Board itself.
That is what the Government Amendment does. With respect to the hon. Member for Dudley, who has no doubt considered the matter carefully and has probably also consulted the Board about it, I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government Amendment goes far enough.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for going

some way to meet me—but he does not go quite far enough. The Government overlook the fact that under Section 11 (1, a) of the 1960 Act the Board is now required to carry on a pool betting business. It is a statutory body and also a commercial concern. It is carrying on a business by Statute and therefore, if it is a business, I do not see why it should be required to invest its money only in trustee securities. That is an unreasonable restriction.
The Committee has had a long day, and I should be wearying it if I attempted to explain all the implications of this matter. The negotiations and discussions that have gone on have, in the nature of things, been rather hurried, and I should be entirely satisfied at this stage if the hon. and learned Gentleman would spend some part of his Christmas holidays seeing whether he could extend the good work that he has started.
I have expressed my regret that the Government feel it necessary that this trustee investment restriction should still continue to apply. I regret that we cannot take the brake off completely. But, having done so much, I hope that the Government will have another look at it and perhaps even undertake, through the usual channels in this matter, to have further consultations with the Board to see whether agreement cannot be reached.
I must make clear that I am not voicing my own opinion in these matters. I am here putting forward a point of view about which the Board is very concerned, not for itself but for the freedom of the new Board to be able to operate as it is required by Statute as a business concern in the interests of racing.

Sir Eric Errington: This is a matter of some importance. The powers of the Board were under examination during the Committee stage discussions of the 1960 Act and in my opinion the position now is worse than it was then. The Explanatory Memorandum states that
… the composition of the Board is changed and its functions limited to those connected with the operation of totalisators and the effecting of betting transactions.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the matter from an entirely different point of view from that


suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). In my submission, what has happened here is that power is given
to invest money in any body corporate which is carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of activities authorised by the Board under subsection (I) of this section …
That means, if we look at the case of Tote Investors Limited which works with the Board, that it would be open for the Board to pay the necessary money and make a take-over bid for Tote Investors Limited, and there would be no protection, so far as I know, for Tote Investors Limited.
The second part of the Amendment states:
… to lend money to any body corporate or other person for the purposes of the carrying on of such a business by that body or other person …
It would seem that there is nothing to prevent money being lent to any body which is carrying on a considerable business in Tote pool betting. That does not seem to me to be the situation in which a new Tote Board ought to be placed.
The existing Tote Board consists of a chairman and a considerable number of members, the hon. Member for Dudley being one. Under this legislation we shall have only four members and they are being put in a position where, by reason of the powers given to them under the Amendment proposed by the Government, they can go into the pool business in a big way. I do not think that was the intention of the Government. If it were, the words I referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum would have no meaning at all.
In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider this matter, as it is of considerable concern to some people.

Mr. Renton: I willingly give an undertaking to think about this matter further, so long as the Committee will be so good meanwhile to accept the Government Amendment because I think it right that we should do that.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Betting Levy Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Renton.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING LEVY BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Renton: I was saying that I am quite willing to give an undertaking to consider this matter further so long as meanwhile the Government Amendment is accepted. I hope that I do not sound to be forcing the issue in saying that, but I think it right that those concerned should see the Government Amendment added to the Bill and in any fresh thoughts they may have on the matter they will be able to take stock of the position in the light of it. I hope that will be acceptable.

Mr. Wigg: That course of action is entirely agreeable to me. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear when asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to go a little further, that I would withdraw my Amendment in favour of the Government Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ACCOUNTS OF, AND REPORTS BY, LEVY BOARD AND TOTALISATOR BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Clause 8 provides that the accounts shall be audited by qualified auditors and that the report and accounts shall be laid before Parliament. On Second Reading I asked my hon. and learned Friend whether those accounts would be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and he answered
No, because these are not public funds in the true sense of the word."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 968.]
I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would like to amend that answer, because I think he will find that Standing Order No. 90 provides that any accounts


laid before Parliament can be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee, in which case I should feel very much happier about the provisions in the Bill that the accounts should be audited by qualified auditors rather than by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend, with great ingenuity, has sprung upon me a point of which I had precisely two minutes notice. I must confess that it is a point which takes me by surprise. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. It is contrary to the advice I gave the House on Second Reading, but I shall be very interested to look into it. I am sorry I cannot go further at this moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, to leave out from "has" to "without" in line 43 and to insert:
at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with that date ceased to be in, or been given notice of termination of, that employment
This Amendment will not, I think, affect a considerable number of people, but it is designed as a gesture. If there are any whose employment will be terminated as a result of the introduction of the Bill, they should be looked after and dealt with generously. The Government's original proposal was for a period of one month after the coming into operation of the Levy Board. I have proposed the substitution of six months for one month. I do not think anyone will be affected. I hope not, because I believe that the new Levy Board will want people rather than want to dispense with their services. In order that those already employed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board should have a feeling of confidence in the desire of the Board to look after employees, I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: The Government accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule.—(BOOKMAKERS' COMMITTEE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ede: Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) repeated the point that I made on Second Reading that there is no requirement in this Schedule that any member of the Bookmakers' Committee shall be a bookmaker. I do not imagine that anything so foolish would be done by the Secretary of State as to set up a Bookmakers' Committee with no bookmakers on it, but the question arises exactly how the members of the Committee are to be chosen.
I was told by someone whom I regard as very knowledgeable in these matters that there are eighteen bookmakers' associations which are held in some high esteem. I had confirmation of that, after I said it on Second Reading, from somebody who came to me and said" I can tell you that the Government have been in touch with exactly eighteen associations." I do not make that assertion myself, but that information was conveyed to me, and I only hope that there is some glimmering of truth in it.
I am a little perturbed by the wording of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, which says:
… the Secretary of State may, after consultation with any body appearing to him to be representative of the interests of bookmakers generally …
That seems to be a somewhat vague statement to put into the paragraph. The Bookmakers' Committee, presumably, will be representative of England, Scotland and Wales, and I should like some assurance that an effort will be made to consult people who know this calling and the members of it in the various parts of the country, because there is a considerable difference between a north-country bookmaker and a south-country bookmaker. I have never had any consultation with a Scottish bookmaker, but I can imagine that he is a different sort of person from


either of the other two I have mentioned. I have had some transactions with Welsh bookmakers, and I am quite certain that they are of so peculiar a make-up, that they must have separate representation on this committee if the committee is to have any knowledge at all of the way in which this provision operates in the valleys of Monmouthshire.
Can the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary of State give any indication of the sources from which information will be sought as this committee is being set up, and can either of them give me any indication of the probable number of people who will sit on this committee when it is constituted?

Mr. McInnes: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I should like some further information about the provisions in the First Schedule. It is true, as my right hon. Friend indicated, that the Bookmakers' Protection Association has said, as pointed out in the Peppiatt Report, that there are some eighteen regional organisations of bookmakers throughout the country, but that relates only to the Bookmakers' Protection Association and, as the Minister of State is aware, there are other bookmakers' associations.
I wonder which one or how many of these bookmakers' associations the right hon. Gentleman intends to consult. The first paragraph of the First Schedule states that the Committee
shall be constituted in such manner as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with any body appearing to him to be representative of the interests of bookmakers … prescribe.
I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to consult the many bookmakers' organisations. I hope, as my right hon. Friend said, that he will do so on a regional basis, so that we have adequate representation because, for example, the Scottish Bookmakers' Association is an entirely different body from that down South, even in referring to the Bookmakers' Protection Association. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position,

because the provisions of the First Schedule are very ambiguous.

Mr. Vosper: May I give the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) an assurance that there will be bookmakers on the Bookmakers' Committee, even though the Schedule does not specifically state that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). painted out, the figure 18 occurs in the Peppiatt Report as being the number of regional organisations of the National Bookmakers' Protection Association. My right hon. Friend's intention, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, is to consult the bookmakers' organisations. That must obviously extend to the regional organisations of the N.B.P.A., and the Peppiatt Report suggested that possibly all those regions might be represented, although it was not a specific recommendation.
As I think the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central had in min,. there are other organisations. He probably had in mind the Starting Price Bookmakers' Association, which is strongly represented in the North of England, Scotland and the North of Ireland. There is a new organisation which has come into being since the Betting aid Gaming Act earlier this year. It is right that we should have regard to these organisations and consult them. Because of that, no number is in mini at the moment or specified in the Bill. It is right that we should first consult and see the extent of the representation necessary before deciding a number.
The two points which are important to the committee are, first, that bookmakers will be on the committee and, secondly, that there will be consultations with all the bodies, regional and national, of bookmakers throughout the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN)

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
These Regulations make a technical amendment to the National Insurance (Married Women) Regulations, 1948. The amendment is necessary to implement the intention of the National Insurance Act, 1959, that married women earning over £9 should be required to pay graduated contributions under the new graduated pension scheme, on the same basis as other people.
Married women will still have the option not to pay flat rate contributions and rely on their husbands' insurance, or to pay such contributions and establish their own individual insurance right. But where they earn over £9 a week they will, as outlined in the White Paper "Provision for Old Age", be equally liable as other employees for graduated contribution, unless they are in a scheme which is accepted as "contracted out".
In a country where so many women are in employment, and where the rights of the married woman are so actively championed, there is no justifiable reason for differentiating between married and single women in relation to their obligations and their rights under the graduated scheme.
Thus, Section 14 (4) of the National Insurance Act, 1959, provided that Section 59 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, which requires the Minister to make regulations providing for the exception of married women from liability to pay contributions, should not require him to make provision for excepting them from liability to pay graduated contributions.
To implement the intention of the 1959 Act fully, however, it is necessary for the Minister not merely to refrain from making new Regulations excepting married

women from liability to pay graduated contributions, but also to ensure that the Regulations already made, before the passing of the 1959 Act, do not have that effect—since it might be argued that they apply automatically to graduated contributions as well as to flat-rate contributions. The proposed amending Regulations are accordingly designed to secure that the existing Regulations are not interpreted as conferring upon married women a right to elect not to pay graduated contributions under the 1959 Act. In terms they provide that the word "contributions" in the existing Regulations does not include graduated contributions under the 1959 Act.
It is, I know, appreciated that under the graduated scheme a wife cannot receive any graduated pension on the graduated contributions paid by her husband, so long as he is alive. Therefore, these amending Regulations also take into account the right of a married woman to build up a graduated pension in her own right.
The amending Regulations also secure that various other minor references to "contributions" in the existing Regulations, which are inappropriate to graduated contributions under the 1959 Act, are not construed as including such con tributions. For example the existing Regulations provide that certain women who have at one time chosen not to pay, or have been precluded from paying, flat-rate contributions cannot thereafter pay such contributions at the non-employed rate, or cannot have their contributions taken into account for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit purposes, until they have paid, or have been credited with, 52 contributions as an employed or self-employed person. It would be clearly inappropriate for graduated contributions to be taken into account for this purpose in the case of women who were not otherwise insured under the flat rate scheme in their own right, first, because they are designed to count, for graduated pension purposes only, and second, because they can be paid by women who are not paying flat rate contributions.
I know all this sounds rather technical, but I am sure the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), is very well aware of this point. Certainly the intention was agreed during discussion of the


Bill and in Committee, and these Regulations are to make clear beyond doubt the obligation of married women earning over £9 a week to pay contributions towards a graduated pension.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: As the right hon. Lady has explained, the Regulations do nothing new. They only carry out the Intentions of the 1959 Act, intentions which were written into the White Paper published earlier to explain the new graduated scheme. It appears that the Regulations are necessary for technical reasons.
With the constant flow of Regulations coming before the House, it is becoming abundantly necessary for serious thought to be given to publicity of the new scheme which will be coming into operation in less than three months after we return from the Christmas Recess. My experience is that there is an enormous amount of ignorance still prevalent about what the new scheme is, what it will do, who will come into it, and what for.
As regards the draft Regulations, many married women still wonder why they retain the option of not paying flat-rate contributions under the original scheme, but have no such option in regard to the graduated contributions under the new scheme. Without some explanation, many married women will think that they are being deprived of some right under the graduated scheme which they have had under the flat-rate scheme ever since 1948.
There is a very good reason why they should pay their graduated contributions. The right hon. Lady has explained that the married woman will have no benefit from her husband's graduated contributions so long as he is alive. If she is left a widow, under the graduated scheme she can enjoy a proportion of the additional benefits that her husband had earned in the graduated scheme at the time of his death.
A married woman exercising her option not to pay contributions is, nevertheless, still eligible for benefits in her awn right under the flat-rate scheme. If her husband dies, subject to specified conditions, she may have a widow's pension. If she does not qualify for a widow's pension, she will be able to draw on her husband's contribution record for the purpose

of qualifying in due course, on a combination of her own contributions and those of her late husband, for retirement pension in her own right. If both husband and wife live to pass the retirement age of the husband, she enjoys a wife's pension by virtue of her husband's contributions.
Therefore, it is important for married women to realise that by remaining in the graduated scheme they are qualifying for benefits in addition to those which they will enjoy under the flat-rate scheme, whether they remain contributors or exercise their option not to pay contributions under the flat-rate scheme.
This is most important. Otherwise, a great many married women will think that all that has happened here is that they are being compelled to pay a graduated contribution when they do not want to pay it, and that it will be tucked away and held in trust by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for an unduly long period, and will then get about 4d. in pension paid to them many years after. But, however small the graduated benefit may be, it will be in addition to the benefits that she will enjoy under the flat-rate scheme, and, therefore, will not in total be negligible.
Married women must also appreciate, as probably all hon. Members do, that this new graduated scheme may not be the last word—that it may be extended. The Minister or his successor may feel bolder and introduce a scheme providing bigger benefits, albeit on higher contribution. It is, therefore, very wise to get the foundations right and, in the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself, these Regulations should be accepted by the House.
I must again appeal for a really serious approach to the promotion of public understanding of all this. The proliferation of Regulations and the jumble and jargon now being built up around the new scheme will bewilder the whole nation in three or four months' time unless a really bold attempt is made to get this across to the public.
I hope that the trade unions will play their part, because the graduated scheme relates only to employed persons, and all the trade unions and all those bodies representative of salaried staffs, and wage earners as well, will have an opportunity of explaining to their members all


about the new scheme, especially where—as we come in a moment to the next Order—the trade unions themselves have been brought into consultation on Regulations that are laid before the House from time to time. I find that even in such cases there is a signal lack of understanding of what is being done—and why.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will convey to her right hon. Friends this very earnest message: "For goodness' sake, let us have the fullest possible publicity of the new scheme and all that it entails. Let us explain to the various categories of insured persons why they are being treated in this way." The Act that we passed last year is too far away for any publicity that the long Committee stage received to be of much value for current purposes. It therefore has to be done afresh.
As I think the right hon. Lady realises, much of the publicity that has lately gone out is already out of date because the new Bill that has gone through this House, is now in another place, and will shortly be passed into law will alter nearly all the figures of contributions that appeared previously. This is a serious matter. If it is not attended to, the time of the House will be taken up at the beginning of April—when we may have other things to think about—in trying to dispose of misunderstandings and grievances that people may have and feel but which, with advance publicity, may be avoided.

10.29 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will not mind if I put what is, perhaps, another point of view. If the superannuation to which these married women could look forward when they came to pensionable age were worth while, then, like him, I would be more ready to support these Regulations. As he has suggested, we may in some

years' time have a worth-while scheme, and perhaps that will be the only reason why some of us on this side of the House could accept these Regulations; so that the married women during the few years until we have a worth-while scheme are part of the original scheme.
My hon Friend said that we needed much more explanation. I agree with him. He said that without a proper explanation married women would be wondering why they were deprived of the right, which they have under the flat-rate scheme, of opting out. My fear is that when an explanation is given to the married women, when they are told what contributions they will have to pay under the scheme and what they will receive, they will object far more to the scheme than they would if they had no explanation at all.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary knows how many married women earning over £9 a week will come into the scheme. They must not be in a recognised occupational scheme. Are there many? Have the Government any idea? Is there going to be a proper explanation to those married women, who are going to be deprived of a right, that under this graded contribution arrangement they will have to pay far more than they have to pay to any outside commercial institution to get the same miserable pension when they attain retirement age?
I have the greatest hesitation in accepting these Regulations. I accept them only in the hope that before many years we shall have a Government which is determined to give value for money paid, instead of milching ordinary working people of money to support a burden which ought to be borne by the Exchequer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS)

10.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
The House will be aware that individual arrangements exist in relation to the payment of seamen. Generally speaking, their wages are assessed and paid at the end of the voyage, whether it be two weeks or two years. These Regulations deal with two quite separate subjects—first, the payment of flat-rate contributions by shipowners and seamen for paid leave at the end of a voyage; and second, the payment of graduated contributions by shipowners and seamen.
The justification for making Regulations about the first subject is that seamen generally take their holidays at the end of their employment and not in the course of it. The Regulations will ensure that seamen have a complete record of Class 1 flat-rate contributions covering weeks of paid leave as well as weeks of employment.
The justification for making Regulations about the second subject is that, as I said, seamen are generally paid by the voyage and not by the week or by the month; and that there are other special features of their employment which require special treatment in connection with the payment of graduated contributions. It is true that a seaman's wage is generally expressed as so much a month, but he is rarely paid by the month. He is generally paid by the voyage. He may receive advances of wages during the voyage, but there is no general settlement until the end of the voyage. For this reason, the Regulations treat the voyage as the pay period for seamen who are paid in that way. Ships' masters will have tables which will show what graduated contributions the seamen should pay for any given wage for any given number of weeks from one to one hundred.
These new Regulations have been fully discussed with the shipping industry and have the full support of both sides of the industry in view of the special circumstances

relating to the payment of seamen. When the Regulations were before the National Insurance Advisory Committee, there was only one representation received. That was from the London County Council, which urged that the new liability to pay flat rate contributions for paid leave should not apply to its sludge vessels. The Advisory Committee recommended that it should not apply, and the Minister has accepted that. The Regulations are drafted accordingly.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: If these draft Regulations are not explained in simpler language, the mariners will be all at sea about how they stand under the graduated pension scheme. I should be inclined to suggest that, if the Regulations go out as they are, our sailors will have something to occupy their time in the long watches of the night. But, since both sides of the industry have agreed to the Regulations, I hope that those concerned will feel that it rests upon them to a very large extent to explain to the men affected just how the arrangements will work.
I suppose that I was not on the London County Council long enough to realise that one could be a mariner under the L.C.C. but, apparently, only on a sludge vessel. I notice that the right hon. Lady said that the only representations which the National Insurance Advisory Committee had came from the London County Council, which said that its sailors were not as other sailors are: they are paid on conditions very similar to those found among people employed on land, and so the Minister has accepted the suggestion that, in defining what is a mariner, we shall exclude ships or vessels used wholly or mainly for the disposal of sludge.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that when we received the recommendations we consulted the Transport and General Workers' Union before we excluded the sludge vessels, so what we have done has the agreement of the London County Council as employers and of the appropriate trade union.

Mr. Houghton: That only goes to show how carefully everything is tied up before the question comes to the House, at least in matters of this kind.
These Regulations deal with a special type of employment, and, clearly, they have to be looked at in relation to the peculiarities of seafaring work, in just the same way as there have to be special arrangements about P.A.Y.E. deductions for people similarly employed. We must bear in mind in this connection that this close tie between the P.A.Y.E. procedure for Income Tax purposes and the deduction of graduated contributions means that there must be some harmony in administration between the two; otherwise we shall be led into difficulty.
I have no further observations to make. More clearly in this case, perhaps, than in the case of the Regulations we have just passed, having regard to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), these Regulations implement the intention of the Act of last year and adjust the deduction arrangements to the special conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 21st November], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, fo the Borough of Kendal [copy laid before the House, 8th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Nelson, [copy laid before the House, 8th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN (PRESS REPORTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Home Office has been on the Government Front Bench throughout the afternoon, and if it were in my power to provide him with overtime I would gladly do so. I want to say how grateful I am to him for attending this debate at this late hour after a busy day, because I particularly want his help.
The matter I raise has some relation to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the facts of the particular case from which I propose to generalise are as follows: a 15 year old—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, but the title of the subject of which he has given notice does not help me to decide that there is Ministerial responsibility. He will understand my difficulties. He knows tie limitations of discussing legislation in these circumstances. I should be grateful for his help.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am obliged. I do not propose to call on anybody to produce legislation on this subject. I want guidance from the Home Office, which has some responsibility for young persons in various capacities and has accepted responsibility, in some capacities, for the Press. I wonder if I might outline to you, Mr. Speaker, the details of a case for which I think the Home Office may be able to accept some degree of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Gentleman first of all tell me what he alleges is the Ministerial responsibility in relation to this matter? That is my difficulty. After that, he can flow on.

Mr. Mallalieu: I shall not merely allege but assert that under the 1933 Act the Home Office has a broad responsibility in cases which are somewhat analogous to the one I propose to raise.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt again. The difficulty is that I must know about Ministerial responsibility before I am able to allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the case.

Mr. Mallalieu: The Ministerial responsibility, as I understand it, is that under the Act magistrates are given power to request that the names of minors who appear in court shall not be published in the Press, and it is a case analogous to that, though not wholly in line with it, that I want to raise tonight and generalise from.

Mr. Speaker: I am being tiresome only in relation to my duties. At present I do not know that any Minister has any power to direct magistrates to exercise their power to request the Press not to publish names.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am not sure what the technical phrase is, but the 1933 Act was one for which the Home Office was responsible in the House, and one of its provisions was that magistrates should have that power. No doubt, as the Home Office carried the Act through the House in 1933 it would accept responsibility for its working.

Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Member think of another device, because I cannot be convinced by that one?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would give anything I could to think of another device, but I am not sure that I can. Would it help if I outlined the case? You could then decide, on the outline of the case, whether there was Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. My duty obliges me to confine the hon. Member to some matter for which Ministerial responsibility exists. If by way of recital he could talk about the thing first, the object of the rules imposed on me would be defeated. I am afraid that I must persist in the matter.

Mr. Mallalieu: Perhaps I might suggest another point on which the Home Office has direct responsibility. This case arises from matter which was given by the police to the Press. The Home Office has a responsibility for the police in the Metropolitan area. I wonder whether by that device I might now introduce my subject.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is talking about some activity of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am generalising about police activities, but it could be a particular case in the Metropolitan area, because I understand that, though I have been alerted by a particular issue that has arisen elsewhere than in the Metropolitan area, it is police practice to do that about which I am complaining.

Mr. Speaker: Metropolitan Police practice is one matter, but if it is other police practice, that does not help me.

Mr. Mallalieu: I will confine it to the Metropolitan Police.
There have been occasions when schoolgirls—I am thinking of one particular one—in the Metropolitan area have been criminally assaulted. Reports of these assaults have been given to the Press. In those reports the name and address of the child concerned has been given by the police to the Press, and the information has then been published.
The result of this publication has been that additional distress has been caused to the victim, to the parents, and to the relatives. I have in mind one instance where, as a result of such publication, people whom I can only describe as ghouls went to the house and made excuses for gaining entry, but were concerned only with staring at the victim.
Also, the name of the victim being published in the Press might lead to intimidation. Once the person who has committed the assault knows the name and address of his victim, he might very well go to that victim and say: "If you lay evidence against me I shall bash you", or words to that effect.
I believe that it is not normal Press practice to publish these names, even if the police afford the information. As a professional journalist I should certainly condemn the practice of publishing the information, and I hope that the House and the Home Secretary will also condemn it, but I am compelled to ask the Minister if he will give some guidance, or if possible some instruction, to those police forces, or that police force for which he has some responsibility, that in no circumstances will the Press

divulge the name and address of minors who are victims of these assaults.
That publication cannot possibly do any good. I know that in certain instances it has caused immense distress, and if the Minister of State were to state his view now, before the House, to the police force for which he has some responsibility, that it is not public policy that these names should be published, he would be doing a service if not to the victims of the past at least to those who may be victims in the future.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I am glad of the opportunity to add a few words to the observations made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). I can well understand the distress caused by criminal assaults both to the person assaulted and to the parents, where the assaulted person is a young child. I also appreciate the concern felt by other parents in the district where these incidents occur. I was going to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Home Secretary had some responsibility for making recommendations to the police outside the Metropolitan area, but if it is your Ruling that we must confine ourselves to the Metropolitan area, I will deal with the matter in general terms.
The practice of reporting the name and address of a person assaulted varies. I would say that, generally speaking, the standard of local and provincial newspapers is a high one. I know of one newspaper in which it is the general rule not to publish the name and address of a young person who has been assaulted, although it may be of help to the police and to the public to publish the general circumstances. That may be of some advantage to the police in trying to find the person who committed the act. In one case I have in mind, by error the name and address was inadvertently mentioned, but in all subsequent editions of the newspaper it was deleted, and that is a practice which can be commended.
Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, does not apply to cases to which I am now referring. That Section applies to hearings in court. I have in mind the reporting of an incident of which the Press have been


made aware by the police. It is in those circumstances that it is inadvisable for the name and address of the person assaulted to be mentioned, because it causes unnecessary distress. It would be helpful if some way could be found whereby the Home Secretary could make a recommendation of a general nature to deal with cases such as this, and so lessen the publicity and distress caused thereby.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in their representations to the Minister of State on this matter.
Although there are occasions when Press publicity is vital in the discovery of the criminal, as we have seen in recent cases, nevertheless there is a considerable danger in pandering excessively to the apparently inexhaustible hunger for news of sexual perversion, especially affecting the young, and such excessive pandering in the Press tends to clothe the sordid with normality. I hope that careful steps will be taken to see that when a break is made in the normal practice against disclosure of names it is made only in the most exceptional circumstances, and in the gravest type of case.

10.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for his generous opening remarks and I am sorry that, because of difficulties which he will understand, I am not able fully to respond to this debate. I think I can say that the whole House will sympathise with the unfortunate people whom the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have in mind. He did not mention any specific case, but I think he knows that the case which I think he has in mind is not one in which the Home Secretary would have any power of intervention. Nor, as you would rule, Mr. Speaker—indeed, you have already ruled—would it be appropriate for me to discuss on an Adjournment Motion any suggestion implying that legislation covering, for example, Press censorship, should be considered to deal with a case like that. I am, therefore, able to deal

in only a limited way with the point which the hon. Member has made.
The hon. Gentleman related his argument to the activities of the Metropolitan Police for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, and he dealt with this matter in a hypothetical manner. He asked, if a case came to the attention of my right hon. Friend in which the police had divulged to the Press the name of the victim, what would be the attitude of my right hon. Friend. It is very difficult for me to reply to what is a hypothetical case and to generalise about what is an individual or personal matter. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and only for them and in such a case the matter is left to their discretion. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, though it is difficult to generalise, that in general the names of the victims should not be disclosed.
I understood the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) to say that there could be cases where, in the interests of tracing the offender, it would be necessary to disclose the name of the victim. I have in mind a recent case which falls into that category. But I should have thought that it would be only in those cases where the Metropolitan Police, acting within the discretion allowed to them, would be able to disclose the name of the victim, and confine disclosure to those cases.
The responsibility of my right hon. Friend does not extend beyond the Metropolitan Police, but I suppose that in general most police forces would adopt the same sort of procedure.
The other point which arises out of this debate, which was touched on both by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), is related to cases which come before the courts. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. This is a Section designed to prevent from exposure to harmful publicity children who come before the courts as a result of court proceedings. Both Section 39 and Section 49 of the Act are applicable in these sorts of cases, and I think it is worth my while to say a word about them.
Section 49 requires that newspapers shall not report the name, address, school, photograph or other identifying particulars of any child or young person concerned in proceedings in a juvenile court. There is in fact a proviso—one which is rarely used—whereby the court or the Secretary of State can allow the publication of identifying particulars if satisfied in any case that it is in the interests of justice to do so. That would be to some extent analogous with the powers of the Metropolitan Police in a case which has not come before the courts. Children are brought before juvenile courts under the 1933 Act not only as offenders but also as being in need of care and protection within the meaning of the Act, and some of those in the latter category have been the victims of offences, including sexual offences. This is an important provision and one that, according to my information, is generally well observed by the newspapers.
Then there is the earlier Section, Section 39, which provides that in any proceedings in any court adult or otherwise—Section 49 refers to juvenile courts only—
… in any proceedings which arise out of any offence against, or any conduct contrary to, decency or morality, the court may direct …
no newspaper shall reveal the name or other identifying particulars of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings. This Section is widely drawn. It appears to apply to proceedings in a civil court as well as in a criminal court.
In 1955 the Press Council told the Home Secretary of the day that this provision was not protecting young witnesses effectively, because the attention of the court was not expressly drawn to its powers at the outset of every such case in which a child or young person was concerned; and that, in consequence, the court either did not consider giving a direction that would prevent publication of identifying particulars, or gave the direction too late to prevent publication in the first reports of the proceedings.
As a result of these representations five years ago, the Home Office sent circular letters to clerks to justices, clerks of peace and clerks of assize and to the chief constables suggesting that arrangements should be made for the courts to be informed at the outset of any case in which the Section applied that a child was to be concerned in the proceedings. Since the issue of those circulars, I have not heard of any criticism that this safeguard was failing to achieve its objective. This whole matter in respect of proceedings before the court was considered by the Ingleby Committee, whose Report was published a few weeks ago. In general the Committee considered that the safeguards were adequate, but it was considering the matter only where proceedings had been instituted. It considered them adequate but recommended slight extensions which the Home Secretary is at present considering. None of these extensions would go far enough to afford protection in the kind of case the hon. Member has in mind, because in that particular case no proceedings had been commenced.
It is the general experience, however, that even when no statutory restriction applies, the newspapers exercise a reasonable discretion in reporting cases in which children and young persons are involved and the Press will nearly always respond well to an appeal by the court, or indeed, by any other responsible authority. As I have said, these provisions do not cover the cases which the hon. Member has in mind where no proceedings have been instituted. All I can say in respect of them relates to the powers and discretion of the Metropolitan Police.
The issue of tonight's debate is of a very wide nature, but I think I can say that the hon. Member has done a service this evening in drawing attention to the harm which may flow from inconsiderate newspaper reports, and I hope that his remarks will be widely noticed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.